Play, But Not Simply Play: The Anthropology of Play

Part of the International perspectives on early childhood education and development book series (CHILD, volume 8)


Play seems to a distinctive trait for the human species. We share the inclination of this seemingly nonsensical behaviour with the other higher vertebrates, especially the mammals. All the same play is a distinctive trait for the human being, for the play found among the mammals is restricted to a shorter period of their childhood, after which the adult mammals get more important things to do than fooling around.

In contrast to its limited function in mammals as training for adult life, play is an all-embracing feature of human life. Furthermore, it is not limited to the activity of individuals or groups. Play is, as shown by the eminent cultural historian, Huizinga (Homo ludens: a study of the play-element in culture, Routledge, London, 1950), constitutive for all kinds of human culture. Huizinga revealed the paradox that this by definition totally purposeless type of activity is nevertheless an apparently universal trait known in any human culture, whatever its location in space and time. Play does, however, share this paradox with other just as useless activities, like religious worship, care for the dead, storytelling, singing, dancing and painting. And this is no random coincidence, for all these kinds of activity have indeed a basic relatedness to play.


  1. Aristotle. (2008). Nicomachean ethics.
  2. Baktin, M. (1984). Rabelais and his word. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  3. Bateson, G. (1979). Bateson, G. Association for the Anthropology of Play Newsletter, 5(4), 2–4.Google Scholar
  4. Bateson, G. (1999). Steps to an ecology of mind – Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caillos, R. (2001). Man, play and games. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1958.Google Scholar
  6. Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan, 1916.Google Scholar
  7. Fink, E. (1957). Oase des Glücks – Gedanken zu einer Ontologie des Spiels. Freiburg: Alber.Google Scholar
  8. Fink, E. (1960). The ontology of play. Philosophy Today, 4(2), 95–109 (Translated extract of Fink 1957.)Google Scholar
  9. Fink, E. (1968). The oasis of happiness – Toward an ontology of play. Yale French Studies, 41, 19–30 (Translated extract of Fink 1957.)Google Scholar
  10. Gombrich, E. H. (1984). The high seriousness of play. Reflections on Homo ludens by J. Huizinga (1872–1945). In Tributes, interpreters of our cultural tradition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hardy, G. H. (1940). A mathematician’s apology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.'s%20Apology.pdf.Google Scholar
  12. Hegel, C. W. F. (2008). Introduction on the essence of philosophical criticism generally, and its relationship to the present state of philosophy in particular. The Critical Journal of Philosophy. First Published: Kritisches Journal der Philosophie, 1(1), (1802).
  13. Hein, P. (2002). Collected grooks I. Copenhagen: Borgen.Google Scholar
  14. Huizinga, J. H. (1950). Homo ludens: A study of the play-element in culture. London: Routledge, 1938.Google Scholar
  15. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity – Contribution to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  16. Kosfeld, M., et al. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krentz, A. A. (1998). Play and education in Plato’s republic. In Twentieth world congress of philosophy, Boston, 10–15 August, 1998.
  18. Nietzsche, F. (2008a). Beyond good and evil, Ch. IV, Aphorisms and interludes, 1886.
  19. Nietzsche, F. (2008b). Philosophy in the tragic age of the Greeks, section 7, 1873.
  20. Rousseau, J. -J. (2008). Emile or on education, 1762.
  21. Schiller, C. F. von. (2008). Letters upon the aesthetic education of man, 1794.
  22. Stevens, P. (1978). Play and work: A false dichotomy. Newsletter of the association for the anthropological study of play, 5, nr. 4.Google Scholar
  23. Sutton-Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Vygotsky, L. (1978). The role of play in development. In Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1933.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations