My other love in life, other than being out and about is play. You may think that actually they are both the same thing, and maybe they are, but play in it’s purest form is hugely important to life and child development. I have posted below an essay I wrote back in 2011 for my diploma in Play Therapy. Please don’t be put off by the fact that it’s an essay, but just read it with a bit of interest as a parent and how we allow are children to play and what we allow them to play with. If you have 5, grab yourself a cup of tea and enjoy…
Gamestation, Early Learning Centre, Toys ‘R’ Us, are all names with which society is familiar. Each of them gives a suggestion as to what play might involve, but when comparing them all they are so very different that one is led to question, what really is play? With such a broad perspective and such a varied outlook I wonder if being so unsure of the nature of play, we, as a society, have forgotten how to do it? To explore this predicament there are four areas worthy of note,
1) Who is play for? Children, adults, or both alike?
2) How are these individuals viewed in society? This is key to know whether or not play was or is now intended for them.
3) What is play and how is it beneficial to both groups?
4) Finally, a look at today’s society and, with these preceding ideas in mind, whether or not it has forgotten how to play.
Who is play for?
90% of respondents in my survey said that we should never stop playing suggested that all of society is entitled to play. A small selection (3%) of secondary school aged children thought that playing should stop at age eleven, that is, when they reach high school. David Cohen (2006) wonders whether teenagers ever play: who decided that play should stop so abruptly – their biological clock or a cultural convention?
This again highlights the ambiguity of play. By not understanding what it is, it seems difficult to establish whom it is for.
The Collins English Dictionary does not mention ‘child’ or ‘children’ in its definition of play. However, it seems that the word ‘play’ strongly suggests children and most research focuses on child’s play and how it aids development. Two of the major play theorists, Piaget and Freud, believed that only children play: Piaget felt adults who ‘larked about’ were in need of a ‘severe case of logic’ (Cohen, 2006, p. 7); Freud believed humans were to learn to love and to work. No obvious sense of grown-ups actually playing there. Cohen (2006) explains how both Piaget and Freud suggest th
at adults may help or hinder child’s play. They can scaffold and initiate, or they can over-control and bombard. According to George Scarlet et al (2005) the first and most obvious support that caregivers can give to their children is initiating play. When adults help children to play it can be of great developmental value. Cohen (2006) concurs that mothers can teach their children through games the many basic rules of both social structure and language learning. Smiley and Huttenlocher (1991) (Cohen, 2006) claim that there are four distinct phases in which a child learns about emotions and one of them is through interaction with parents, particularly through play. Lee (2001) describes how young children are informed about the ‘patterns of value’ (p. 39) that they should uphold and live by in order to be qualified as a cultural member by their parents and the other adults around them. It is often evident what a child has picked up through their make-believe play. For example, when playing ‘house’ Kevin (names have been changed for confidentiality purposes) tells me to pretend I’m ill. I do so accordingly. Kevin then asks me if I would like some tea, something he knows his mum has for comfort or relaxation. Given Kevin’s developmental age (2 ½ years) it is clear that this is something he has observed from adults around him, rather than him specifically knowing the pleasure of a good cup of tea when feeling a little tired or down.
If adults help children play, how do children help adults play? Children lack sophistication and readily believe. They remind adults of their childhood by helping them to believe. “Clap your hands if you believe in fairies” is a common ploy in pantomime. When a child offers a pretend cookie and the parent pretends to eat it they venture into the realms of make-believe and encourage their child to come with them. Children also bring humour to what might otherwise be serious. Cohen (2006) describes a time when his son cuddles up to him with a drippy Ribena bottle. Cohen firmly asks his son to stop, but this only prompts him drip more. Cohen, getting cross, tells his son it isn’t funny. His son replies with a sheepish ‘It is a little bit funny’.
Adult’s interaction must still allow children the freedom to learn themselves. Much research has led to child-initiated programmes and curricula are being developed throughout schools but particularly at Foundation Stage. Nevertheless, with national scores and pressure on testing, there is still uncertainty about how this should be implemented to ensure best social, emotional, physical and academic development all of which are progressed by play.
Play varies greatly on age, gender and cultural differences. Scarlett et al (2005) identify two main cultural differences; those that are interdependent, that is the child has a need to ‘fit in’ and harmony among group members is valued; and the contrasting individualistic, where a child is required to ‘stand out’ and individual achievement is highly rated. These values will be manifest not only in play but also in everyday social interaction. As well as culture defining play, and thus life decisions, so does gender. From very early there are expectations with regard to how children should play (Scarlett et al, 2005). These expectations come from both adults and children. Additionally, boys brains develop at a slightly slower rate than girls leading to more rough and tumble games.
Play appears to be more suited for and accepted by children. However, possibly the definition makes it unclear whom play is for. My survey asked what games were enjoyed by the respondent as children and what games they enjoyed now. The former question was answered easily, but the latter not so. Many listed sports or the occasional board game. I am not suggesting that these are not forms of play, but I am emphasising that the comprehension of ‘play’ is vague and therefore how do we know if we are doing it properly? Perhaps studying the role of adults and children in society will clarify this ambiguity and as a result, whether or not adults and children are entitled to, and, do play.
How are children/adults viewed in society?
From some of the earliest recordings of ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, children have been documented as playing with balls, dolls and jumping ropes (Hughes, 2010). The early Christian view was that a child was important to God, has a soul, and therefore is not to be abused by adults (Hughes, 2010). Unfortunately, these initial ideas did not survive and evidence from the Renaissance (14th – 17th Century) shows children were no longer deemed important. Hughes (2010) quoting Tucker (1974) who noted that children in the Renaissance were categorised with fools and senile old people and that idleness was considered ‘sinful and unprofitable’ (p. 9) so children were put to work as soon as they were able. Ironically it was during the Renaissance that, in Southern-Germany, the toy industry began (Hughes, 2010, p. 10).
A century later it appeared that children may, once again, have been given some recognition. French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), wrote in his book Emile that ‘childhood has its own way of seeing, thinking, and feeling’ (Rousseau in Hughes, 2010). This brought a celebration of childhood innocence in Europe, but England remained focused on the value of work for both adults and children (Hughes, 2010). The Protestant church, who believed that hard work was required for salvation, maintained this view. Play was viewed as the opposite of work and so was both sinful and irresponsible (Hughes, 2010). This far, play was for no one!
It wasn’t until the 17th and 18th Centuries that the value of the child and the value of play were rediscovered. John Locke (1632-1704), an English philosopher, believed that each child was unique and valuable and had needs that must be recognised by adults (Hughes, 2010). England certainly did not come round to this idea straight away and it was the Puritans, that is the Americans, who slowly grasped some of Locke’s thinking. They believed children needed a lot of instruction and although they were inherently sinful, they were at least capable of ‘being enlightened’ (Borstelmann in Hughes, 2010). Because of children’s natural disadvantage of being young they faced discrimination due to this view that they were underdeveloped. Adults and children were thought of as different types of humans. Lee (2001) quotes from Qvortrup (1994) who captures the division of adults and children by labelling the former ‘human beings’ and the latter ‘human becomings’ (p. 5). Adulthood, or the human being, was to be ‘stable, complete, self-possessed, and self-controlling’ (Lee, 2001, p. 5). The human being was also expected to be capable of independent thoughts or actions. The human becoming did not possess such qualities and was therefore considered as incomplete.
Lee (2001) explains how a few decades ago adulthood was a place of stability and childhood was a journey towards this stability; it was a clear destination. However, as we have entered the 21st Century adult life is a lot less predictable. The changeable nature makes the goal uncertain and no longer provides an obvious target for the child. The idea of children turning from incomplete human becomings to complete human beings in the form of an adult is now confused and so children’s needs require greater, specific attention,
‘Childhood is the most intensively governed sector of personal existence […] the health, welfare, and rearing of children has been linked in thought and practice to the destiny of the nation and the responsibilities of the State. The modern child has become the focus of innumerable projects… (Rose, (1989) quoted in Lee, 2001, p. 30-31).
The uncertainty of adulthood means that the child’s role models are no longer clearly defined. Extra care has to be taken to ensure children aresocialised properly. If they are not the result of their incompleteness will be ‘disorder, instability or inconsistency on an individual or social scale’ (Lee, 2001, p. 42). Perhaps the indistinctness of adulthood is blurring the unstable stability of childhood. Lee states that if children are ‘not clearly becomings, they cannot be protected,while if they are not clearly beings they cannot be respected’ (p. 96). If childhood and adulthood is becoming less distinguishable is this why play, which I have established is for all ages, is also ambiguous. Do adults believe that they should be complete, stable grown-ups, but in their incomplete state still have a need for play? What exactly is play?
What is play and how is it beneficial?
Enjoyable, free-willed, safe, engaging, social, interactive, means of escaping, relaxing, learning experience, and most of all fun, were the predominant words in my survey when asked to define play. Other writers have come up with their own definitions of play; Cohen describes it as ‘wonderful, fun, golden, innocent’ (p. 1) and a ‘free activity’ (p. 15). Hughes (2010
) outlines five characteristics he thinks are crucial in play, ‘intrinsically motivated’, ‘freely chosen’, ‘pleasurable’, ‘nonliteral’, and ‘actively engaged in by the player’ (p. 4-5). It would appear that these characteristics and emotions are available to everyone and not limited to children only. Is play more beneficial to children then?
Scarlett et all (2005) remind us of a very important aspect of play; it only happens when children feel secure. Infants will fail to play if they feel anxious. Cohen (2006) discusses this point further in relation to Bowlby’s attachment theory. Cohen states that when a child is securely attached they feel freer to explore and thus ‘play more creatively’ (p. 86). When a child is not securely attached they are more likely to linger with their parents or remain very isolated and object-focused, but in a constant state of agitation and therefore unable to relax into play. Cohen (2006) also expresses how play develops in the home before it develops elsewhere. If a child has not experienced this early ability to explore and then play they are likely to miss out on crucial developmental milestones which will not only hinder their ability to play later in life, but also their ability to interact with the world around them, a skill built upon by play. Pellegrini et al (2000) emphasise children’s struggle to play if they feel stressed. Play will only occur in safe and comfortable contexts and so can also be used to understand how the child feels in their environment. Piaget believed that one will adapt to their environment, but adaption takes valuable time. It would be better if we got it right in the first place.
It is vital then, that schools as well as home, gets this environment correct. Although play starts in the ages of preschool, it most definitely should continue within school. As play-based curriculums develop, schools are beginning to address that which is most natural to children; play. Scarlett et al (2005) describe play as the child’s natural way of being and interacting; ‘if we are to relate to children, help them with their problems, and support their development, there is no way of doing so without considering and enlisting the help of play’ (p. 246). Brian Sutton-Smith (1997) explains how play is good for children’s physical, emotional, cognitive and social development. Power (2000) states how play helps children with the following; ‘cognitive, motor, and social development […] including the development of perception, attention, memory, problem solving, language, communication, creativity, logical operations, emotion regulation, self-regulation, social skills, gender roles, social relationships, conflict resolution, coping with stress, and so on’ (quoted in Scarlett et al, 2005, p. 5). How can play not be beneficial?
Play is not only helpful in learning to be a social and intellectual being, but also helpful in teaching us to understand emotions that face us daily and even still are sometimes hard to identify. Hughes (2010) talks about object manipulation and the overcoming of anxiety by a heightened sense of power and control. An example he gives is of a child playing with blocks, dolls, or miniature life toys. The child is ‘reducing the ordinarily large and overwhelming world to a size that he or she can handle’ (p. 24-25). The child is able to explore the feelings evoked in such situations and find their own way of dealing with them. A child can do this with whatever toy they feel they need to aid the process. Scarlett et al (2005) argues that there may not be such a thing as an educational toy; it is the way the child uses the toy that makes it educational (p. 165). In creating their own adventures through play experiences, children can challenge themselves and develop problem-solving skills to find new and creative approaches to a whole variety of situations. Play allows the child to be adaptable, reinforcing their ability to combat stress or difficult experiences in everyday life.
Play in some shape or another is crucial as a child. This may be throwing pebbles into a tin can, creating a battleship out of sofas, using sticks to march an army into war, going on holiday in your caravan bunk-bed, arguing who is going to be mummy or baby, jumping over a rope, or playing your favourite computer games. Play has many forms, the important thing is, is that we play. When children have been able to experience the enjoyment and freedom of play they enable the continuation of the ability to relax and/or socialise as an adult. Play has many forms, some for children, some for adults and some for in-between. By confusing this division, the meaning of play is confused and play can become inappropriate. Is it our lack of respect for play that has led us as a society to neglect its importance and thus forgotten how to do it?
Has society forgotten how to play?
Over the years play has changed dramatically due to the nature of society (Hop, Skip and Jump, 2009). Pre-war the streets were safe and children spent a lot of their time playing outdoors. World War Two saw the end of this. Two million children were evacuated to the country and this changed the way many experienced play, predominantly for the better. Many middle-class children were confined to the boundaries of their gardens, yet often they would escape and meeting poorer children on the streets was exciting. Within children there seems to be a need to find play and that may involve taking all sorts of risks. In the early fifties the cinema became a weekly source of entertainment for children. They would cause havoc in the dark (not much has changed there), but then take what they had seen and create some elaborate game with their street gangs. The films inspired their play. Sadly, the end of the fifties saw the end of outdoor play. Road safety became an issue and there were many tragedies. The television became a lifesaver for parents and by the second half of the 20th Century almost every house had one. Children were out a lot less as they scheduled their playtime around popular shows. The Moors Murders, carried out by Ian Bradly and Myra Hindley between 1963 and 1965 brought about the end of childhood innocence. Children became confined to their houses and the television took even more precedence.
Icons from all over the world, particularly America, influenced British society. The BMX introduced the ‘Macho’ look and boy bands, the movie Grease, and the Spice Girls brought a new dimension to how girls spent their free time. Make-up, girl power, and image became all the rage. The late eighties saw the development of video games, which were initially seen as a blessing by parents as they kept their children occupied and within their sight. Traditional games such as skipping and nursery rhymes remained and still do remain only among very young children (Hop, Skip and Jump, 2009).
The development of electronic play probably forms the most deliberated topic in modern day play. There appear to be very strong arguments both for and against. Some believe computer games encourage interaction, others believe they are solitary games. Some believe they enhance creativity with their advanced graphics and opportunity to design and develop characters; others believe they are mind-numbing and prescribed. Some believe they bring challenge as we discover how to move on to the next level, whilst others feel that they only challenge our thumbs! On a more serious note, the level of violence inflicted by many games is a much debated matter. But, what does the evidence say?
Firstly, are they interactive? Don Tapscott (2008), author of bestselling Growing Up Digital, feels that (what he terms) the ‘net generation’ couldn’t be more interactive. He tells of how they are a generation that ‘care strongly about justice and are actively trying to improve society – witness their role in the recent Obama campaign, in which they organised themselves through the Internet and mobile phones and campaigned on YouTube’ (The Economist, 2008). Scarlett et al (2005) discuss how the games themselves are interactive and how the player’s input may change an outcome (p. 120-121). Do computer games form social recluses? Well, that depends what type of game you play and how much you play on them.
Do computer games enhance or destroy creativity? Before answering this question we need to understand the importance of make-believe. Being able to symbolise, that is, pretend an object is something else, brings a crucial stage in child development in the distinguishing between fantasy and reality. The inability to believe something is what it isn’t is a common trait in autistic children. Cohen (2006) suggests that the failure of autistic children to pretend is associated with their failure to develop an understanding of other people’s thoughts and feelings. This said, it is key to look at whether or not computer games enable this type of symbolism. Scarlett et al (2005) feel that traditional play can offer a more varied experience of developing and exploring imaginary worlds. I think this is true in the child’s ability to say, create a pirates ship out of cushions, but not so in the games and adventures the pirate may have. A balance is necessary.
The Central Advisory Council for Education (The Economist, 1998) view play as the ‘principal means of learning in early childhood’. Learning requires challenge in order to progress, so can computer games provide this kind of challenge? Perhaps if there was a computer game designed to encounter every kind of life experience they might. The Sims comes pretty close to the ins and outs of daily life, but the child, unless completely hooked, is not necessarily feeling for his/her self. A game which requires moving up levels provides challenge and the player must discover the way through problem solving. However, once the way is learnt there is often no more learning to be done. Games appropriate to the player’s age need to stimulate learning in the appropriate form. When a player plays a game that is unsuitable problems seem to arise.
Computer games and violence and their effect on the developing child is proving to be a serious concern. Evidence is still limited but the little that there is suggests that violent games can produce violent players. Kardaras (2008) has made observations that at game centres frustrated people will kick or punch the machines, they seem to have become sucked into the game and unaware of their surroundings. She goes on to explore the way the brain reacts to these violent games. I mentioned earlier how boys are more partial to rough and tumble games for longer than girls. This is due to the fact that boy’s brains develop slower than girls in the early years. As the frontal lobes of the brain mature, the frequency of rough and tumble play goes down (Cohen, 2006). If the frontal lobes are damaged are deprived the chance to develop, the sufferer will often display a higher level of playfulness, which may sometimes be mistaken for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Kardaras (2008) mentions how, when playing a violent computer game, the heart rate, blood pressure and oxygen consumption all increase. This sense of intensity activates the amygdala, which is responsible for emotional arousal (Kalning, 2006). With the amygdala activated, the brain is in fight or flight mode, which can lead to irrational decisions. Kardaras (2008) illustrates a study where players underwent a brain scan immediately after playing violent video games. The scan showed that the frontal regions of the brain were barely being used, even after they had finished playing. If the frontal areas of the brain are responsible for higher order thinking and emotional control, then underactive ones are bound to result in an increase in hyperactivity and an expression of this can often be violence.
Conclusion
‘From a public policy standpoint, it’s time to get off the question of “Are there real and serious effects?” That’s been answered and answered […] It’s now time to move on to a more constructive questions like, ‘How do we make it easier for parents – within the limits of culture, society and law – to provide a healthier childhood for their kids?’ (Anderson, 2010).
It seems that society are still very aware of play and appreciate the importance of having fun and being able to relax, and why should that be taken away? What seems to have gone wrong is an understanding of play’s specific nature to differing age groups and thus it’s appropriateness. By disrespecting play we flood our young boys with overrated violence and our young girls with intense image-awareness way before allowing them to develop the skills they need to cope with such highly influenced emotions. I wonder if the Xbox can provide a game to do that?
References
Anderson, C. (2010) ‘Violent Video Game Play Makes More Aggressive Kids, Study Shows’ Science Daily Psychological Bulletin, 2 March [Online]. Available at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100301111405.htm/ (Accessed 22 August 2011)
Cohen, D. (2006) The Development of Play. 3rd edn. East Sussex: Routledge
Collins English Dictionary 21st Century edn. (2001). Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers
Hop, Skip and Jump: The Story of Children’s Play (2009) BBC Four Television, 8 December
Hughes, F.P. (2010) Children, Play, and Development. 4th edn. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.
Kalning, K. (2006) ‘Does game violence make teens aggressive?’ [Online]. Available at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16099971/ns/technology_and_science-games/t/does-game-violence-make-teens-aggressive/ (Accessed 22 August 2011)
Kardaras, E. (2008) ‘The Effect of Video Games on the Brain’, Serendip Update [Online]. Available at: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1742/ (Accessed 22 August 2011)
Lee, N. (2001) Childhood and Society, Growing up in an age of uncertainty. Maidenhead: Open University Press
Pellegrini, D. and Blatchford, P. (2000) The Child at School, Interactions with Peers and Teachers. London: Arnold, A. Member of the Hodder Headline Group
Scarlett, W.G., Naudeau, S., Salonius-Pasternak, D., Ponte, I. (2005) Children’s Play. USA: Sage Publications
The Economist (1998) ‘The “progressive” revolution in Britain’s schools is being reversed. Why did it happen, what went wrong, and will the new approach be any better?’, 18 June [Online]. Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/136734
Plowden’s progress/ (Accessed: 22 August 2011)
The Economist (2008) ‘The net generation. The kids are alright’, 13 November [Online]. Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/12591038/ (Accessed: 22 August 2011)