Ana-- Thanks so much for the discussion of the way that play can be
analyzed within a chat framework. On one point I want to raise an issue
that I seem to be encountering a LOT lately, including at AERA.
When you characterize the object of activity, you use the phrase, "material
object." I do not believe this is a useful way to think think about the
of an object and I do not think it is what Leontiev, Engestrom, Lektorsky,
had in mind. I could be wrong, but "object" is related to motives. Yrjo uses
metaphor of object/motives being always "just over the horizon." The are
about the future
and it is difficult to think of the future as simply a material object. Even
if it is in some way
oriented toward what we might consider a concrete object (a diploma from
a new car) as "object" it is still infused with ideality, both when it is
being anticipated, striven for,
and when it is sitting right before you.
I have also been mulling over the idea that other people can be objects of
activity, no less than
non-human objects. My current life partner was, at one time, clearly the
object of my activities
and remains the "object of my affections."
What your discussion highlighted for me is that all nodes of the triangle,
which exist only in
dynamic tension with each other, are always present as constituents of our
goal directed actions,
but some seem close up, or dominant, in our analysis while others seem
backgrounded to the
point where they are virtually invisible to us, at least "at the moment."
This is related to Burke's
ideas about the highlighting of varouis elements of his pentad.
I will try to get the chapter on being human where Burke writes about "no"
and get it posted. But
it may take a while to find.
On 4/15/05, David Preiss <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> There was XMCA activity the last few days? I haven't gotten anything.
> *David Preiss***
> *Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile: www.puc.cl <http://www.puc.cl/>
> *PACE Center at Yale University: www.yale.edu/pace<http://www.yale.edu/pace>
> *Homepage: http://pantheon.yale.edu/~ddp6/
> *Phone: 56-2-3544605*
> *Fax: 56-2-354-4844*
> *E-mail: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org*
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Ana Marjanovic-Shane [mailto:email@example.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, April 15, 2005 12:56 AM
> *To:* firstname.lastname@example.org
> *Cc:* Xmca
> *Subject:* Re: First LCHC Play Discussion Notes
> Hm!! With an exclamation mark! I feel like seeing a frozen picture of your
> workshop which I have to warm up in some places in order to insert my
> remarks and comments and in that way try to become a part of the discussion.
> I will insert my remarks directly into the text of the workshop notes into
> the places where I think these comments belong. I will separate them from
> the rest of the text visually in three ways, so that even if you get only
> text (ASCII) e-mail you will be able to see my notes). So, please scroll
> Mike Cole wrote:
> Robert Lecusay is having difficulty posting to XMCA (will these gremlins
> give up the ghost and stop playing with us!!!*&&*&*#$ who-is-at %#!!!). So I get to
> (he he) be the portage guy today.
> Here are the notes from the first session. We are still working at getting
> relevant articles posted on xmca.
> Play worlds Meeting at LCHC
> April 11, 2004
> Sonja Baumer Presenting
> Lindqvist – The Aesthetics of Play (Chpts. 3-5)
> Elkonin – The Psychology of Play (Appendix)
> Present: Mike Cole, Deborah Wilson, Elaine Parent, Virginia Gordon,
> Xavier, Beth Ferholt, Kristen Clark, Sonja Baumer, Kelli Moore, Robert
> Lecusay, Christian Simmoneti, Lars Rossen, Neils Pederson, Koichi Haishi,
> Don Schumman.
> Sonja began by asking everyone at the meeting to write on a piece of paper
> their intuitive definition of play. She collected these and read some,
> noting that some people defined play in terms of their own experience,
> others negatively as the opposite of work, and others in terms of
> suspension of disbelief. Here are some samples:
> "embodiment of imagination"
> "the absence of stress, fun"
> "free departure from everyday life"
> "freedom, enjoyment, pleasure"
> "unconscious, fictional, pretense"
> "informal setting, another reality, lack of incentives"
> "separation from everyday reality."
> Sonja defined play as a state of mind, an experience.
> Mike asked about the difference between games and play, to which Sonja
> responded with a comparison of Piaget and Vygostky's ideas. Unlike play,
> Piaget saw games as rule-bound. Vygotsky, on the other hand, viewed games
> as another stage in the development of play – humans enact scripts that
> pertain to stereotypes and narratives of a particular character role.
> Sonja concluded by defining games as characterized by explicit rules and
> implicit imaginary situations, play by implicit rules, and explicit
> imaginary situations.
> *We can look at this relationship in another way -- using the CHAT model
> (famous triangles). In order to do that, let me just briefly re-describe
> that model: there is a small triangle in the center, that describes
> relationships between the Subject (individual), the Community (or the others
> to which the Subject relates) and the Object (which for this purpose we
> should view as "the material reality of the world"). The bigger (outer)
> triangle represents three meta-relationships or functions that mediate the
> three basic relationships. Tools/Symbols mediate relationships between the
> Subject and the world (of material objects); Rules mediate relationships
> between Subject and the Community/Others and Division of Labor mediates the
> ways Community relates to the World of material objects.
> I look at play-like-activities - ** I want here to broaden the meaning of
> the concept of PLAY** - as activities of creating these meta-relationships.
> Hence you have Pretend Play -- as play-like-activity of creating ROLES
> (division of labor). You have Games -- as play-like-activities of creating
> and exploring rules, making rules, using rules, bending rules, testing rules
> etc. And - the third category of play-like-activities are those that create
> and explore Tools/Symbols: Play with words, play with various building
> blocks, Lego blocks, tinker-toys, e.g. tools that manipulate the physical
> BUT -- in each category of these various play-like-activities you have
> embedded all the relationships and aspects of the activity systems: pretend
> play may be an exploration of the roles (division of labor), but it is also
> about the rules, only the rules are not the in the immediate focus of play.
> The games, although they are primarily about rules, cannot be imagined
> without an imaginary situation in which these rules are created, and without
> the roles that are assumed by players. And, lastly, play with language /
> tools, always also contains negotiating rules and exploring the division of
> So I would say, that play-like-activities are activities which, in
> contrast to the "for real" activities, are not aimed at an object-objective;
> instead, they are activities of creating and exploring the very meta
> relationships between the subject, the community and the material world
> Deborah asked about the progression of puppy play (which seemed to have no
> mental element) to play that did involve some kind of mental element (play
> with humor)
> Sonja responded by highlighting an example from Bateson's What is Play?
> (to be posted on XMCA): Chimps giving eye signals that communicate that
> their biting is playful biting. This is a paradoxical frame in which the
> playful bite stands for a bite but does not denote pain.
> *Bateson's example is interesting and important because it discusses the
> relationship between the tools used to create the play and the topic of
> play. This is a complex example which needs sorting out: "play frame" from
> "reality frame" and what does it mean that an object stands for another
> object or an act stands for another act: i.e. what does it mean to "stand
> for". Bateson called "frames" -- being in the play frame is signaled -- or
> you cannot create the play frame: dogs signal to other dogs that they are
> going to "play bite them" and not really bite them. If another dog does not
> see the signal -- it may bite back for real. People need to signal "this is
> play" in order to create the play frame.
> Little lower (or later) Mike asked what is the relationship between the
> rules and the frame. They are connected. The framing activities (signals)
> create a "switch" or a "portal" into the play-modus. The rules are different
> in the play frame from the rules outside and that has to be signaled, or
> there will be no play but just misunderstanding.
> An interesting issue for the research is what are all the different the
> ways to create the play frame. (Think of the Wardrobe!!!)
> Mike brought up Burke's "Dramatic No" (Being Human)
> *Mike, can you elaborate (or just give me a reference: I need to refresh
> my Burke knowledge)*
> Sonja continued by talking about historical changes in the perceived value
> of play, noting that with the emergence of capitalism, play came to be
> associated with childishness , whereas before (e.g. medieval), play was a
> privileged activity for adults.
> Mike asked what the difference was between rules and a frame. What about
> peek-a-boo? Is it play?
> Sonja argued that there are some rules, expectations that are non-verbally
> negotiated in peek-a-boo.
> *I think that Peek-a-boo is a game that belongs to very beginning of
> introducing very little infants into the code switching or creating a play
> frame. It is an activity which is clearly not a goal directed activity, but
> instead is changing the rules of perception; it is also about creating
> different relationships between the infant and the person who is initiating
> the game - changing the rules of "normal" behavior and relationships; and a
> game of creating definite roles that players can assume. I think that we
> have to go back and study different "peek-a-boo"-ish games around the world.
> Mike told the story of a girl (participant at the Fifth Dimension) who
> engages in elaborate and spontaneous pretend play that reflects her
> difficult situation at home.
> Deborah asked if in play, the back and forth between emotional and
> intellectual states was engaged in order to eventually gain a clear
> definition of each state.
> *Deborah, could you elaborate on "the back and forth between emotional and
> intellectual states"?? What did you have in mind when you called them an
> "emotional state" or an "intellectual state"? I think you are onto something
> important here, but I am not certain what.*
> Mike then discussed instances in which adults could be put in positions
> where they were uncertain about the reality of the moment (Alfred
> Schutz?). He continued by asking, "What is it that allows people to create
> and work with certain frames?" Then offered two examples: a memory of his
> son playing a fantasy baseball game (not an actual game, but the
> recreation of specific moments of a game, playing the parts of specific
> ball players), and an anecdote about a time in U.S. baseball history when
> travel was such that teams couldn't travel around as much as they do
> today, and so radio reenactments of the games were staged (the issue of a
> fully engaged audience).
> Sonja added the example of radio audiences writing letters to characters
> asking for advice (e.g. asking the character of a doctor for medical
> advice). Mike brought up an example of a soap opera viewer who physically
> attacked an actress from the show because of the evil things she had done
> on the show. Sonja: "How are people seduced into acting these ways?"
> Beth, returning to the example of a person writing for medical advice to
> someone who plays the character of a doctor, said that part of the healing
> process for people is grounded in the trust one develops for the doctor.
> She went on to highlight similar examples from the Narnia play world.
> Kelli argued that in this situation of audience-actor, the actor, who is
> also engaging in play, is also actually learning something when he/she,
> for example, researches his/her part. She brought up the example of a TV
> actor who when interviewed said that he found himself able to answer
> medical questions from fans.
> *This and some previous examples are the issues of the relationship
> between the play frame and the reality frame and their interaction. What can
> do we take into the play frame -- from the reality frame? What do we take
> back from the play frame into the reality frame? How do we cross between
> them? What are the "good" crossings over (an actor learning something in
> researching a character) and what are the "errors" (writing letters to a
> doctor in a play/ TV series as if to a real one?)*
> Mike: this brings up the question of imitation
> Sonja brought up Stanislavsky: the notion that when trying to act out an
> emotion, one needs to locate that emotion in oneself (a personal memory
> that causes one to re-experience the emotion). In light of this, Sonja
> noted that it was not chance that she plays the role shoe does in the
> Narnia play world. Mike noted the Eisentstein, Stan, Vygotsky were all
> Mike next discussed transition phenomena – kids who are beginning to
> engage in games with rules. He offered an example of a kid playing pool in
> the Fifth Dimension who created new rules within the rules of the game
> that were to his advantage (e.g. yelling "Chancies!" gives one the
> opportunity to take another turn).
> Sonja spoke about the relationship between imagination and thought,
> highlighting Vygotsky's notion (discussed in Lindqvist's article) that
> adults have more imagination than kids as a consequence of the fact that
> they have had more experiences than kids, and thus have more resources to
> draw on. Sonja argued that the research does not support this.
> Next Mike introduced the Russian term voobrazhenie (into – image – making)
> as a lead-in to a discussion about the necessity of separation from the
> world in order to have an experience of contrast, and therefore the
> possibility of being able to anticipate what happens next (see Cole and
> Levitin (1998) A Cultural Historical View of Human Nature,
> Sonja and Mike: Imagination is a cognitive tool that allows us to maintain
> the illusion of continuity.
> Sonja: Play helps maintain an illusion of unpredictability, but enacted in
> a safe space.
> Mike: Reality and fantasy are present all the time. This ties into the
> value of moments of disruption (Yrjo Engestrom)
> Kristen: Returned to the issue of the difference in the capacity for
> imagination between adults and kids, adults having more experience than
> kids with social and cultural texts.
> Mike: Listed some potential areas for future play discussions: rules &
> frame, ritual, hyperreality (Baudrillard), Stanislavsky,
> Deborah: Do autistic individuals play?
> *A very interesting article in the newest Discover Magazine :
> * *What Do Animals Think?** Temple Grandin says animals think like
> autistic humans. She should know.*
> (I am sending a link to the on line article in a separate e-mail)
> Sonja: High functioning individuals do.
> Then there was debate (stemming from an anecdote of a Kid at the Fifth
> Dimension) over whether Asperger's Syndrome is high functioning or low
> functioning . . .
> Answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger%27s_syndrome
> *This discussion is VERY productive and already covers miles and miles of
> concepts that have to be carefully rethought. I am very excited about it.
> Can't wait to get the films and watch them too.
> It is almost 1:00 am on the east coast in Montreal. I must get up early
> for another fascinating session of AERA. So good night.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 01 2005 - 01:00:07 PDT