Advertisement

Philosophy & Technology

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 517–534 | Cite as

Play in the Information Age

  • Miguel SicartEmail author
Research Article

Abstract

This article is an inquiry on the role of play in shaping the cultures of the Information Age. By applying concepts from Postphenomenology and the Philosophy of Information, this paper argues that play and computation share a capacity to shape human experience. I will apply the concept of re-ontologization to describe the effect that computation has had in shaping the world. I will apply the concept of relational strategies to argue that play is a way of interfacing with the computational world. This paper argues that play is a particularly relevant form of shaping the human experience of the re-ontologized infosphere because play, like computation, can create worlds. The goal of this article is to propose a research program that situates play as a relevant perspective to analyze the culture of the Information Age.

Keywords

Philosophy of Information Postphenomenology Information Technologies Play Gamification Design Interaction design 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I have to thank Pawel Grabarczyk and Peter Nelson for their critical input on ideas and style. A special thank goes to the anonymous reviewers whose insightful comments significantly improved the final version of this paper.

References

  1. Agre, P. (1997). Computation and human experience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berkowitz, D., & Schwartz, D. (2015). Miley, CNN and The Onion. Journalism Practice, 10(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  3. Bishop, C. (2012). Artificial Hells. Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship. London. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  4. Boal, A. (2008). Theatre of the oppressed. London: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bogost, I. (2016). Play anything: The pleasure of limits, the uses of boredom, and the secret of games. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  6. Boudreau, K., & Consalvo, M. (2014). Families and Social Network Games. Information, Communication & Society, 17(9), 1118–1130.Google Scholar
  7. Bøgh Andersen, P. (1997). A Theory of Computer Semiotics: Semiotic Approaches to Construction and Assessment of Computer Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Caillois, R. (2001). Man, play and games. Urbana and. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cleland, C. (2001). Recipes, algorithms, and programs. Minds and Machines, 11, 219–237.Google Scholar
  10. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2008). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  11. Consalvo, M. (2009). There is no magic circle. Games and Culture, 4(4), 408–417.Google Scholar
  12. Consalvo, M., & Begy, J. (2015). Players and their pets: Gaming communities from Beta to sunset. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. Deterding, S., & Walz, S. (2014). The Gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Deterding, S. (2016). Make-believe in Gameful and playful design. In P. Turner & J. T. Harviainen (Eds.), Digital Make-Believe (pp. 101–124). London: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2011). Significance of models of computation, from Turing model to natural computation. Minds and Machines, 21, 301–322.Google Scholar
  16. Donovan, T. (2010). Replay: The history of video games. East Sussex: Yellow Ant.Google Scholar
  17. Floridi, L. (2014). The 4th revolution: How the Infosphere is reshaping human reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Floridi, L. (2010). The philosophy of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Floridi, L. (2002). On the intrinsic value of information objects and the Infosphere. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(4), 287–304.Google Scholar
  21. Floridi, L. (1999). Information ethics: On the philosophical Foundation of Computer Ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 1(1), 37–56.Google Scholar
  22. Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. W. (2004). On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14(3), 349–379.Google Scholar
  23. Flusser, V. (1999). Shape of things: A philosophy of design. London: Reaktion Books.Google Scholar
  24. Flusser, V. (2002). Writings. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. Flusser, V. (2013). Post-history. Minneapolis: Univocal Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Frissen, V., Lammes, S., de Lange, M., de Mul, J., & Raessens, J. (2015). Playful identities: The Ludification of digital media cultures. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Galloway, A. R. (2012). The Interface effect. New York: Polity.Google Scholar
  28. Gaver, W. W. (2009). Designing for Homo Ludens, Still. In T. Binder, J. Löwgren, & L. Malmborg (Eds.), (Re)searching the Digital Bauhaus. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Getsy, D. J. (Ed.). (2011). From Diversion to Subversion. Games, Play, and Twentieth-Century Art. Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters. Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  31. Henricks, T. S. (2009). Orderly and disorderly play: A comparison. American Journal of Play, 2(1).Google Scholar
  32. Henricks, T. S. (2015). Play and the human condition. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hill, R. K. (2015). What an Algorithm Is. Philosophy & Technology, 29(1), 35–59.Google Scholar
  34. Huizinga, J. (1992)[1938]. Homo Ludens. A Study of the Play-Element in Culture. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  35. Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld. From garden to earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Isen, A. M., & Reeve, J. (2005). The influence of positive affect on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Facilitating enjoyment of play, responsible work behavior, and self-control. Motivation and Emotion, 29(4).Google Scholar
  37. Johnson, S. (2016). Wonderland: How play made the modern world. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
  38. Kaprow, A. (2003). Essays on the blurring of art and life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  39. De Landa, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  40. Lange, A.-C., Lenglet, M., & Seyfert, R. (2016). Cultures of high-frequency trading: Mapping the landscape of algorithmic developments in contemporary financial markets. Economy and Society, 45(2), 149–165.Google Scholar
  41. Laxton, S. (2011). From judgement to process: The modern ludic field. In D. J. Getsy (Ed.), From Diversion to Subversion. Games, Play, and Twentieth-Century Art (pp. 3–24). Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lehdonvirta, V., & Castronova, E. (2014). Virtual economies: Design and analysis. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Manovich, L. (2013). Software takes command. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  44. Manovich, L. (2002). The language of new media. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  45. Newmahr, S. (2011). Playing on the edge: Sadomasochism, risk, and intimacy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Oliver, J., Savičić, G. & Vasiliev, D. (2011). Critical Engineering Manifesto. https://criticalengineering.org.
  47. Pearce, C. (2011). Communities of play: Emergent cultures in multiplayer games and virtual worlds. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  48. Petzold, C. (2008). The annotated Turing: A guided tour through Alan Turing's historic paper on computability and the Turing machine. Indianapolis: Wiley Publishing.Google Scholar
  49. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). The media equation: How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rosenberger, R. (2009). The Sudden Experience of the Computer. Ai & Society, 24(2), 173–180.Google Scholar
  51. Rosenberger, R. (2012). The Importance of Generalized Bodily Habits for a Future World of Ubiquitous Computing. Ai & Society, 28 (3). Springer London: 289–96.Google Scholar
  52. Schechner, R. (1988). Playing. Play & Culture, 1, 3–19.Google Scholar
  53. Seyama, J., & Nagayama, R. S. (2007). The Uncanny Valley: Effect of realism on the impression of artificial human faces. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environments, 16(4), 337–351.Google Scholar
  54. Sicart, M. (2014a). Playing the good life: Gamification and ethics. In S. Deterding & S. Walz (Eds.), The Gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 225–245). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Sicart, M. (2014b). Play matters. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sicart, M. (2009). The ethics of computer games. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Sicart, M. (2008). Defining game mechanics. Game Studies 8, 2. http://gamestudies.org/0802/articles/sicart
  58. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Turing, A. M. (1950). Computing machine and intelligence. Mind, 49, 433–460.Google Scholar
  60. Verbeek, P.-P. (2005). What things do: Philosophical reflections on technology, agency, and design. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Wenzel, C. H. (2005). An introduction to Kant’s aesthetics. Core concepts and problems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  62. Ziewitz, M. (2017). A Not Quite Random Walk: Experimenting with the Ethnomethods of the Algorithm. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1–13.Google Scholar
  63. Zimmerman, E. (2014). Manifesto for a ludic century. In S. Deterding & S. Walz (Eds.), The Gameful world: Approaches, issues, applications (pp. 19–23). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Computer Games ResearchIT University of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark

Personalised recommendations