Play is life, as some companies claim.
I was interested in finding out more about the ideas of British psychoanalyst
D.W. Winnicott, whose ideas of "transitional objects" and "holding environments" I'd recently learned of (see Tuesday's post). Some quotes:
"Psychotherapy takes place in the overlap of two areas of playing, that of the patient and that of the therapist. Psychotherapy has to do with two people playing together. The corollary of this is that where playing is not possible then the work done by the therapist is directed towards bringing the patient from a state of not being able to play into a state of being able to play." (from "Playing: Its Theoretical Status in the Clinical Situation," 1971)
"The place where cultural experience is located is in the potential space between the individual and the environment (originally the object). The same can be said of playing. Cultural experience begins with creative living first manifested as play." (from "Playing: Its Theoretical Status in the Clinical Situation," 1971)
"It is in the space between inner and outer world, which is also the space between people--the transitional space--that intimate relationships and creativity occur." (from "Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena," 1951)
"When symbolism is employed the infant is already clearly distinguishing between fantasy and fact, between inner objects and external objects, between primary creativity and perception." (from "Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomenon," 1951)
I also found an interesting article about the uses of Winnicott's Potential Spaces in creativity by Michael Szollosy, which looks at the theory of potential spaces and their use as a locus of creativity in a depersonalized, postmodern world. There are more passages about play there:
Play is more than merely the expression of individual interiority or the discursive exchange between "doctor" and "patient." Playing is a creative, communicative experience where subjects meet; it is not wholly the domain of either participant. Winnicott further explains that "only in playing is communication possible; except direct communication [such as acting out], which belongs to psychopathology or to an extreme immaturity" (1971, 54). Play, as communication, is primarily intersubjective, and takes place at the point of paradoxical intersection between subjectivities. Play permits the movement of experience from that of the entirely subjective object-world to mutual subject recognition, and provides a basis for our symbolic use of objects.
Another thing that Szollosy wrote caught my eye:
This space is an area in which the infant can be challenged and experiment, but must also (Winnicott insists) be a place of rest "for the human individual engaged in the perpetual human task of keeping inner and outer reality separate yet interrelated"
These symbolic spaces are something I've been thinking a lot about lately, especially as regards The Game Neverending. Online games and communities can be fantastic "potential spaces" or "holding environments" for collective creativity, but they can also be territories where aggressive fantasies can be acted out without fear of consequences, by people who feel safe in the anonymity of online personae.
I received an email yesterday from Julian Dibbell, and was reminded to reread his essay A Rape in Cyberspace, as it is pertinent to issues which may arise in the game. The essay, if you haven't read it, concerns a rape that occurred online in a well-populated living room in LambdaMOO, and how the community sought to define the nature of the crime, the proper punishment and all the knotty problems surrounding its virtuality. He writes about the erosion of the distinction between the symbolic and the real:
I have come to hear in [these thoughts] an announcement of the final stages of our decades-long passage into the Information Age, a paradigm shift that the classic liberal firewall between word and deed (itself a product of an earlier paradigm shift commonly known as the Enlightenment) is not likely to survive intact. After all, anyone the least bit familiar with the workings of the new era's definitive technology, the computer, knows that it operates on a principle impracticably difficult to distinguish from the pre-Enlightenment principle of the magic word: the commands you type into a computer are a kind of speech that doesn't so much communicate as make things happen, directly and ineluctably, the same way pulling a trigger does.
Symbolic or Real? Fantasy or Actuality? Play or Life? As Catherine MacKinnon and Patrick Naughton can attest, this is the great metaphysical question of our age.