[Xmca-l] Re: (no subject)

[Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>]

Caitlin,

Be careful not to give too short shrift to the overzealous grad student who
bulldozes her colleagues during a debate. I think there is probably a lot
more at play here than what you might imagine. For example, it could be
that she has different cultural understandings about "what is play?" (cf.
Gregory Bateson - and be sure to check out his "The message "This is
play"'?" essay in the difficult to find Group Processes - it is critical!
As is his Theory of Play and Fantasy). I know many people that see intense
argumentation as a form of play (Deborah Schiffrin's paper on Jewish
argument is a nice piece to help think about the culturally specific nature
of the "metapragmatics of play"
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4167542?uid=3739928&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102768046393-
but see also Stanton Wortham's work on local metapramatic models (I think
he uses the term "metapragmatic regimentation" to capture what Bateson was
after) and also R. Keith Sawyer's work on the cultural construction of
local "frames").

In Bateson's piece, he describes monkeys and otters (he referred to both in
different places) at the zoo and how they send a message "this is play".
This message makes it possible for them to engage in kinds of behavior that
would otherwise be seen as seriously threatening, such as fighting.

In human life, the metalinguistic work that conveys the message "this is
play" is very contingent upon the communities of practice with which we are
most familiar. So, what makes you think that the "bulldozing overzealous
graduate student" isn't just playing around?

I mean that in all seriousness.*

I appreciate your interest in opening play to something different from how
we normally think of it (e.g., as strictly opposed to "seriousness"). But
at the same time, I wonder if you might be heading down a slippery slope in
which play can be anything. I suspect my question of "opposition" may have
been taken differently than intended. To clarify, I was simply suggesting
that if "play" is going to be a useful category for understanding the world
around us, then one would need to say what it is. One way of saying what
something is is by saying what it is not. This is what I meant by "what
does it oppose?"

Put slightly differently, if you take the position that everything is play,
then the sun setting, a baby crying, the bombing of Hiroshima, all of these
things in themselves would be play. That doesn't make much sense to me.
Would you agree?

If those things are not play, then "what is play?" (or, alternatively,
"what is not play?").

-greg
*and we could, of course, ask this very question of this email: is this an
instance of me being a bit too serious with you? (and as a public display -
all the more vain of me). Or Is this play?
Maybe we could polls the XMCA community of those who read this? And what if
they said that it sounded too serious and yet I said that I MEANT it
playfully? Or vice-versa? What would it mean? How do we know if it is play
or not?






On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 3:59 PM, CAITLIN WUBBENA <cwubbena@gse.upenn.edu>wrote:

> Thanks everyone for the positive feedback and great ideas! It's been really
> helpful for me and I think I've been more able to mentally conceptualize
> where I'm going. If this remains interesting, please continue to provide
> feedback and ideas!
>
> Greg-- Play as informal conversation is great verbiage...that gives me some
> direction. Let's say informal, intellectually adventurous conversation. So,
> I think you've hit the nail on the head...but I want to be careful to not
> describe play as in opposition to seriousness. In fact, using Plato's
> conceptualizations of play, I want to argue that the inability to play (due
> to lack of practice in childhood, I suppose) is precisely what hinders
> those strange and serious characters from engaging fully/creatively in
> academia. For example, I think of the overzealous grad student who
> bulldozes his colleagues during a debate or the uninspired post doc who is
> too hard on herself when a project isn't going completely according to
> plan. These people are successful insofar as they've arrived at a certain
> selective/impressive place (definite snaps to that)...still, I would argue
> that they would benefit from being intellectually playful/adventurous so
> they can produce serious and creative work that is responsive to their
> given context (empathy learned from play in childhood). So, a playful
> attitude, I will submit, results in serious (and higher quality!) academic
> work.
>
> How does that sound? I suppose I don't think play is in opposition to
> anything...
>
> -C.
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Caitlin,
> >
> > I find it fascinating that you are interested in studying play in the
> stage
> > of ADULTHOOD. And more fascinating that you would look in the peculiar
> > adulthood stage that is filled with those strange and serious characters
> > called "academics".
> >
> > Did I get that right? Something about putting play (informal
> conversation?)
> > back into academia?
> >
> > If so, I say "YES"! but am not sure quite how to help...
> >
> > Or maybe, first, I should ask: what is "play" in adulthood?
> >
> > Defining by opposition, what does it oppose?
> > Work?
> > Seriousness?
> > Something else?
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > playfully,
> > greg
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 10:34 AM, CAITLIN WUBBENA <
> cwubbena@gse.upenn.edu
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for your responses. A little more about the project: it's
> > definitely
> > > rooted in a strong experiential piece (I've noticed that kids who grew
> up
> > > in hyper-structured environments seem to lack empathy, appropriate
> debate
> > > skills, etc once they get to college. Also, more kids seem to grow up
> in
> > > these hyper-structured environments...at least in the middle class
> > > [Lareau]. Further, this is often discussed in informal settings like
> TED
> > > talks [Ken Robinson, free range children]) coupled with a theoretical,
> > > academic piece.
> > >
> > > My background is in philosophy--so I'm most immediately drawn to the
> > > theorists I mentioned in my initial post. My idea with this project is
> to
> > > trace the history of conceptualizations of play in academia to
> illustrate
> > > the context of this more colloquial conversation that happens on TED
> > talks
> > > and the like. I will also include "examples" to ground the theoretical
> > > aspect...illustrations of play in Novalis' Novices of Sais and an essay
> > on
> > > play/identity formation by CD Wright, for example. Ultimately, the goal
> > > will be to bring the informal conversation (back) into academia.
> > >
> > > Long story short, I'm not quite sure where this will go yet. But I
> > suspect
> > > that the nature of the project might allow some room to incorporate a
> few
> > > conceptualizations of play, as long as they lead to this central idea
> of
> > > play as necessarily leading to productivity.
> > >
> > > As a disclaimer, I haven't had a chance to read Vygotsky yet...in
> fact, I
> > > just received the email that it has arrived in the library.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Greg Thompson <
> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Caitlin,
> > > > Maybe you could say a little more about what you mean by "play"?
> > > > I suspect that you may be talking about an ontogenetically different
> > > thing
> > > > from what is at the heart of Vygotsky's work (that's not to say that
> > the
> > > > two are unrelated, simply that some elaboration is needed...).
> > > > -greg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 11:05 AM, CAITLIN WUBBENA <
> > cwubbena@gse.upenn.edu
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi! I am a graduate student at Penn working on my Master's paper in
> > > > > foundations/philosophy of education. I am taking a course with
> Andrew
> > > > > Babson and he recommended I post here for some feedback/advice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Loosely, my topic is centered on Plato's notion of
> play/seriousness.
> > I
> > > > want
> > > > > to explore why intellectual play is vital for success in higher ed
> > and
> > > > > envision this particular project (it's a relatively short lit
> review)
> > > as
> > > > an
> > > > > analysis of the historical context that has allowed this
> conversation
> > > to
> > > > > happen in academia. At this point, I plan to cite Plato,
> Kierkegaard
> > > > > (Socratic irony), and Dewey. I've also been introduced to Vygotsky
> > and
> > > > > Kendall Walton. The main challenge is bridging the conversation to
> > > higher
> > > > > ed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any advice on where to go, books/articles to look into, etc would
> be
> > > > > greatly appreciated!
> > > > >
> > > > > -Caitlin
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > > > Visiting Assistant Professor
> > > > Department of Anthropology
> > > > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > > > Brigham Young University
> > > > Provo, UT 84602
> > > > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > Visiting Assistant Professor
> > Department of Anthropology
> > 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> > Brigham Young University
> > Provo, UT 84602
> > http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
> >
>



-- 
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Anthropology
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
Status: O