Carpet Squares

Today I made modification to the shanty town; that is still going well on the playground. The shanty town itself is basically a very large wooden setting. Built of pallets, beams and other loose parts the children have slowly taken into it, it takes up a large space in the playground.
And so far it has gone down a treat, I spent a couple of days building it (while we were closed) so the children didn't see me building it. And have changed the basic design from the one I built last year. I focused more on actual dwellings in building last years shanty town but this year focused on it being more of a setting that could be moved through. The ground floor is full of twists and turns, dead ends and hidden entrances that I struggle to fit through and can never seem to navigate even though I built it(unlike the children). The first floor is a series of roof and walls, with a slope, beam bridges and trapdoors leading to the lower floor. And the second floor consists of various platforms that the children jump from at great height.
And of course the children are able to built, destroy, inhabit etc. this space to their hearts content.

I could speak about that for ages, and on modifications for even longer. But todays thought was on a much smaller modification I made to the setting as a whole. That being that as the weather made a turn for the worse and as the whole town is made of pallets they inevitably become quite slippery. And as many of them have become very well calibrated to the space and evermore daring when it comes to the jumps and gaps they traverse, I do not want them to fall from a height of ten feet at the lowest.
So my modification was to nail squares of carpet on the points where the children jumped from, and landed at. It worked well and I tested each jump and found that their was more than enough grip. But standing on one of the highest points I looked out at the shanty town and saw all these squares telling me where to jump and where to land. And I realised that in fact my modification was quite prescriptive and no doubt would influence where the children jumped and landed.
I stand firm in my opinion that it was necessary and right, the pallets were slippery and posed more of a danger than a risk. But nonetheless I'm aware that it was also prescriptive; despite the fact that the points where I hammered in these carpet squares were the points that I had observed children jumping and landing at the most.

It made me think that even though my modification managed the risk in the spaces most used. That it didn't nothing to add grip to the jump and land points that have not been used or found yet. No doubt the children will get bored of those gaps and will find, invent or create new ones. Yet I have done nothing to combat the slipperiness of those pallets yet to be jumped from and landed on.

It was a reminder that I can only respond to play as it is, not as what it will be or could be.

A Play Memory Re-visited

A moment I have been thinking about for quite a while was a couple of weeks ago on The Land. It was a day when a child was trying to throw foam on the fire and another, who I'll refer to as Jack was cursing like a witch. I had been playing with a third child with the wooden sword I'd found; he was cutting off my legs.

Jack had shouted me over to have a look at his leg after coming out of the office. I had a look at the bruise and asked him where he had hurt it. He told me it was in the shanty town (a big wooden den/maze/setting that I'll hopefully write about at some point) and then told me to follow him so he could show me where it was. He showed me and then we went separate ways and I carried on playing with the third child. But on the way there Jack noted that the old sandpit had gone. He asked where it had gone and told me that he'd liked playing in it when he used to come. I pointed out the other sandpit down the bottom and he started to reminisce about filling up buckets with sand and water.

Which leads me to twenty minutes later when Jack approached me again and told me to close my eyes. I had no idea what he was going to do or where he wanted to take me but I closed them anyway, fearful that he would just punch me in the nuts and run. He led me on the perilous journey from the top of the Land, down the hill, over the bridge and across the woodchip. He led me over a good beam and then told me to open my eyes.

We were standing at the sandpit down the bottom and after finding a shovel and bucket he began to re-enact his play memory with me by filling the bucket up with sand. I went to find another bucket to fill up with water so he could add that to the mixture. He poured the water in and I went to get more, always making the sure the mixture was wet but not drowning. I got some more and then we swapped, I began shovelling the sand into the bucket, which was big and black, and Jack went to get water.

When he came back the first child came over and asked what was going on, Jack explained and this child asked if he could join in. I found another shovel as the two both shifted sand and I went to get more water. This was all in about five minutes and then we found we had too much water, so I moved sand to catch up while the others decided how much water to add making the mixture right. Now the third child (who was a lot younger) came over and helped too and once full Jack wanted it all to go into the brook. I helped carry the bucket/tub out of the sandpit with the first child and they started putting it in.

 

By now I had begun removing myself from the play, The third child's presence had replaced me and the play had evolved. They continued to throw the sand into the brook and only when observing from a distance did I realise the significance of what I had been a part of.

 

That being, that in many other settings Jack, the first and the third child would have all been banned from the space. Jack for his swearing, The first child for trying to put foam in the fire and the third child for whacking staff with a wooden stick.

And had that been the case their play would never have been able to evolve and change and Jack would never have been able to re-visit that play memory that was birthed on the same space. The same play memory that acted as a play sun (which I'll also hopefully write about at some point) for both the first and third child.

It was nice to know that the setting had both created a play memory and allowed it to be re-visited, and that Jack wanted me to re-visit it with him was flattering.

 

And that's my pondering for today.

Swearing

It is likely impossible that we will ever know the origins of spoken language, nor of the common dialects from which most of the world’s languages descend. It is equally unlikely that we will ever know when language was first adapted to a written form; the birth of reading and writing, of letters and literature.

The process itself of creating written language must have been an incredibly complex and testing one. To find a symbol for a sound, visualising thoughts in ways never before seen; logic suggests that the first written languages were compiled of mostly pictures, direct representations of what was being described. But again it is doubtful we will ever know.

What we do know though is this; the oldest known record of written language is of the ancient Sumerians and is around 5000 years old. And that whether spoken or written, language was a giant leap forward in the human ability to communicate with one another.
Think, as social animals it is imperative to our survival to be able to be social; naturally we are pack animals. Every day, in all aspects of life we communicate with one another, it may be verbally, written or through our body language and both insanity and depression have been documented as a result of prolonged seclusion from social interaction.
All three methods of communication are also evolving and always have been. It is theorised that the approximately 5000 languages spoken today all descended from around 20 languages and have been evolving since. The meaning of words also change, the most obvious example being gay, initially referring to a state of happiness now refers to sexual orientation. And on that note orientation used to mean, facing east. And words also fall out of use, pleb was a 19^th century slanderous term used against the upper classes but now refers to fool, and I can’t remember the last time I heard someone say it in either context.

The argument I am getting around to is that swearing is just another form of communication. And even that is giving it too much credit; it isn’t another form of communication, words that are deemed “swear words” are just that, words. To swear once meant assuring seriousness to a cause and in its most intense referred to “swearing an oath”, the breaking of which could result in death. Yet now a “swear word” is a sound or written symbols or a form of body language that is seen as taboo.

But why? What makes a word a “swear word”, what turns that sound or symbol or action into taboo? Furthermore what is the outcome of preforming these taboos? And what is the difference between the word cunt and the word tree? Both are comprised of four symbols, each with their own sound, compiled together to make a distinct sound with distinct meanings. Breaking it down like that seems to make its taboo status trivial but its status remains just that; a taboo. But again I ask, why?

I place the blame on social constructs; those things that have only the meaning that we place on them (i.e. money). Yet such negativity towards an evolution of language does not come from an individual’s personal distaste. If I decided that seaweed was a “swear word” that would not make it so, even if the mention of it caused me offence. Just because I didn’t like it wouldn’t make it a “swear word”, my view on seaweed wouldn’t count for shit in the worldwide opinion of the stuff.

And I believe the reason is this, we are conditioned as children on the rights and wrongs of language. And that regardless of the evolution of language as we grow, we are taught and told as children what not to say. And this is done because our parents, teachers and other agents of socialisation are as susceptible as the rest of us to these social constructs.
And as my argument broadens the secret villain is revealed; society, culture and civilisation at large. Not in the Marxist sense that the bourgeoisie aim to stifle our proletarian expression or any such thing but that the outcome of civilisation and society is a large number of people striving for similar goals and who hold similar norms and values; to quote Agent K in Men in Black “A person is smart. People are dumb”.
I believe that swearing, or the taboo status of certain words, is a matter of consensus; and that society is dependent on consensus. If everyone had their own thoughts and ideas and pursued them in their own way there would be no society or culture. Think of teamwork, if four architects were tasked with drawing up a new corporate headquarters and they each had their own conflicting design, location and materials in mind, chances are the job wouldn’t get done.

Yet the kink in the great chain is this; that we all swear. We all do it, some more than others but that’s irrelevant, the point is everyone swears at one point or another. But if the consensus says that swearing is bad, why do we do it? Exactly because consensus says it’s bad, that’s why.

 So despite the fact that we all swear, it remains a value within society not to swear. And it remains a taboo due to this false value we all seem to place on it, even though it is simply an expression, a symbol, an evolutionary development in our ability to communicate with one another.

In terms of playwork that is why we should let children swear, as it is just a word, ultimately it means only what we decide it means. Furthermore this idea of false consensus, social construct, and individuality within society is not playful, they’re very much adult terms and adult values in the sense that no child has ever come up to me and wanted to talk about Marxism or social constructs.

 And as playworkers we acknowledge (or should have acknowledged) that the existence of our jobs is also an acknowledgment, an acknowledgement that there is a lack of adult free space in which children can play. Having acknowledged that we would by hypocritical to bring with us adult norms and values, such as don’t swear.

Albert Camus, Rene Descartes, the Universe and Suicide

I've been thinking about the fundamentals of what we know to be true lately, about the things we know are fact and about the things we cannot doubt. It began when I returned to Albert Camus and considered his final words yet again; "The struggle to reach the heights is enough to fill a man's heart". And whilst an optimistic ending to an overall pessimistic book it left me asking, what are those heights?
If the strive towards "the heights" is enough to add meaning to life where there is no God. Then for sure those heights are fundamental to the humans races survival. Those are the very things that prevent the mass suicide of all those who do not believe or follow a God/s. So I pondered on what Albert Camus meant by those words, if the heights were enough, then what were they? Was there some ultimate goal we can reach, is there a height above all others. I think not. The conclusion I came to was that the heights that we strive towards, and which add meaning to our lives, are those set by ourselves. Influenced by every interaction, force and social concept we come in contact with; they are each personal and distinct. Furthermore I figured that once reached these heights we set ourselves become void. That one would either have to repeatedly set a new height or one impossible height to give meaning to his or her life, but just possible enough that it could be slowly chiselled away at.

Inevitably this lead me to question my own heights, my own meaning in life. If we are but a series of inexplicable accidents and coincidences spanning back though the ages; sentient live composed mostly of air, plus particles electro-magnetically charged together is there a meaning, is there a point? I don't think so, not that I thought my way into depression! But it did make me think about how insignificant I was, in terms of the country, the world, our solar system  and the universe as a whole. Even if our entire planet, or our entire solar system perished at this very moment. It would not make any lasting impact on the universe. Our whole solar system is as insignificant as me; as insignificant as the thoughts I write.
And this made me consider the futility of suicide (not that I was suicidal), it made me realise that my death would accomplish no more than my life. So I might as well keep living (as might we all) I might as well find the heights I wish to follow and strive to reach them.

Yet every height I looked at I couldn't follow. Everything I saw I began to question, and I saw futility in things I never used to. So sought out to find what I could know, that which I couldn't doubt. I wanted to find a truth that was true no matter what questions I asked my self. I wanted to find a fundamental fact that I could build my heights from. So logically I turned to Rene Descartes and his Discourse on Method and I cannot help but agree with his conclusion. I have tried to find flaws in his words, tried to find a foundation truer than the truth but I cannot.
"I think, therefore I am" Cogito ergo sum.
That I think proves that I exist, and that is the only thing we can know without a doubt. And whilst enlightening it was not helpful in the construction of a meaning for life.

But what it did do was make me think about the fundamentals of life, of our world and the universe. I did not question the truth of these facts I merely pondered on the implications were they false.
For instance, what if the colour green (which we know is green) was actually black, and that black was green. Imagine a world where that fact was false. Hair colour would be different, likely resulting in the population of the world being completely different. And those people who weren't born wouldn't invent the things they did. Would leave in the summer survive having absorbed all the suns ray, or would it be a world without leaves? Or a world in which leaves a fundamentally different? The gardens of the world would be different and the Statue of Liberty would be far more ominous.

Or consider a world where the value of 2 did not equal 2. What if 2 equalled 3 and 3 equalled 1. That would make 2+2=6 and would make the value of 11 equal 7, yet 7 would still equal 7.
It would change the way we measured everything from millimetres to the size of our galaxy. It would change Pi, Plank's Constant, architecture, primary school curriculum, and currency.

The point is the even if one were to change the slightest thing we consider fundamental, it would change everything. And then my mind finally turned to play; and try as I might I cannot question how fundamental it is. We have seen what happens when people do not play, that whilst they survive they are not whole. That is not to sound derogatory but would play exist is it weren't important? If it weren't innate, if that it is?
And on thinking of play I was reminding of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. That we can either know a particles velocity or it's location, but never both. That the very photons we use to view a particle move it. And like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle I think we can never truly understand the fundamentals of play, the Cogito ergo sum of play, and enjoy it at the same time.

I think that on the day we truly define play, it shall die.
Play is beautiful even in it's flaws.

And finally, if "Play is the means by which we seek happiness" as I believe it is, then I think I have found a conclusion. As we all seek happiness (no single being is drawn to the pursuit of depression) as humans, we all want to be happy. And if we all want to be happy, then maybe I was wrong. Maybe there is a universal height we all strive towards, that is it just the means by which we strive towards this universal height that varies.
Perhaps I have found that height Albert Camus wrote of, which only leaves one question. What's my play?

Expanding on that Quote

“A playworkers job isn’t to create play; it’s to understand that play lies in all things”

I don’t think we create play, I think that children create the play and then once created, step into it. Nor do I think it is a large process for the child to create play; depending on the surroundings all it has to be is an environment, object or idea that sparks the “what if” possibilities. I could walk along the bridge and see the potential play in rolling down the snowy hill (the play has been created) but until I roll down that hill I have yet to step into that play.

But with that in mind (again depending on the setting) this acknowledgment of playful potential can easily be seen as a sub-conscious process. Acting without thinking, not knowing why you did something and moving with your flits and whims all suggest that we don’t consciously think “it would be fun if I put glasses on that sea bass”, we (we including the children and staff as we are playful creatures and examples of neotony) feel it and we do. We feel the playful potential then we step into it.
Following that train of thought and acknowledging that the process of creating play can be sub-conscious, it can be argued that play creates itself to the extent that we don’t intentionally construct it.
Obviously “in any environment, the degree of creativity and inventiveness is directly proportional to the number of variables in it”, so like an organisation play cannot grow without the proper funds. Loose parts fund the ability for play to sub-consciously create itself.

And to understand that play lies in all things is a connected but separate matter. Connected in that, with the knowledge that it lies in all things we can “feed” the playground knowing that the loose parts are funding this ability to follow ones flits and whims.

Yet it is separate also and takes us down a more cultural and societal path. Lorenz (1972) said that we are “specialists in non-specialisation” (Bob Hughes), yet at the same time “in most fields of academia success is defined by knowing more and more about less and less” (Ronnie Davey).
Naturally we specialise in nothing and that allows us to specialise in whatever our environment and situation requires. Yet in contemporary society we are focused on much narrower fields of expertise. In schools specific subjects are taught, in high schools some are dropped for more focus on others (usually maths or science), A-levels are spent learning three of four subjects for two years and any further education (degrees, masters, PhD, Doctorate) are all spent studying one subject for a lengthy period of one’s life. And even then, once we move to the workplace, humanities ability for broad adaptive abilities are ignored and our jobs focus on specific actions and outcomes; not helped by Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nation.
The point being that there is a difference in understanding that play lies in all things and in acknowledging that play lies in all things. The latter is to agree and with the statement but do nothing about it. The former, and the one within the quote at the top of this page, is to explore all things and to have a deep seated knowledge in the field of playwork.

Yet what I contest is this; to know play is not enough to be a playworker. To have our minds focused on a dot of the world’s wealth of knowledge and potential is futile when that we work for extends to all corners of that wealth.  As children we are still specialists in non-specialisation, yet as adults within playwork we must try to regain that status; ideally with the approximate study of all things. Or to be poetic we must again begin to follow the flits and whims of our heart and mind.

 

 

A Tribal Observation

I guess this links in slightly with my first post, about humans still being biologically tribal. Regardless that how I viewed the group of 5 boys that came down to the junk playground "The Land" yesterday (that's where I work by the way).
Initially their behaviour seemed erratic and destructive to me, it didn't seem to have any purpose other than causing anger and frustration in others. That was until I began to observe their behaviour as though they were a tribe, or a troop of baboons. Not that I think they're baboons, but that mind set helped me understand and interpret their behaviour.

Of most interest to me was the youngest of the 5, he's nine or ten and we'll call him Bradley. He was of interest to me as he usually come to the playground with a different group of lads, and within that group he is very much at the top of the hierarchy, or near enough. Whereas in this group he is certainly at the bottom, not to mention the fact that the other lads were much older than him compare to him usual group.
As I watched it seemed that although Bradley had a place in this hierarchy, he had no authority or status at all over the other older lads; he was almost just along for the ride. And that's when it got interesting for me, as Bradley had found a stick. Quite a good stick as well, and I remember from my childhood that wielding a stick was an empowering feeling. Clearly the other lads in the group agreed and one tried to seize the stick from Bradley. To me this was not an attack on his status within the group as he had little, but more an attack on his actual membership of it. Being much younger I guess it is a constant struggle to prove yourself to the older lads and in being with them at all I think it gives him much more status and authority and maybe acceptance with children his own age. But that's just a guess.
Anyway, Bradley didn't roll over and die, he fought for the stick, he retaliated against this challenge of his position in the troop. And they pulled and pushed and twisted for a while but being bigger and stronger the other boy won and Bradley was left unhappy and without a stick and firmly at the bottom of the hierarchy. But Bradley isn't one to give up and in a stroke of genius he sawed off the end of a brush, giving himself bigger and better stick. Although this was even more short lived than the first stick as the leader of the troop was watching.
The commotion over the first stick had not gone unnoticed by him and seeing as how he couldn't get the stick from the boy who wrestled it off of Bradley he too sought his own. He went over and took the new stick off of Bradley but this time there was no struggle, this boy is undoubtedly the leader of their pack so Bradley conceded and the leaders place was secure at the top. I could say more on him but we'll go back to Bradley.
He was fuming now and fairly so, despite his best efforts he had been repeatedly pushed to the bottom of the troop, it was almost a caste system. So he went into the office of the playworkers and took another brush, this time it was a metal one and took the end of that with a couple of whacks against a pallet. The other two in the group weren't bothered about having sticks or pole or brushes so Bradley got to keep this one. Although now there were unhappy playworkers who didn't have any brushes left and were having to intervene in this troop of defiant males.

The playworkers had just cause to be annoyed and gave a reasoned argument but the task was futile as far as I could see it as this was Bradley's chance to solidify his position in the troop and remind the older lads why he was with them. The playworkers intervened and Bradley bit back with swearing and aggression, the older lads laughed and Bradley didn't seem so low on the hierarchy any more and for that moment it was more a meritocracy than a caste system.
Interestingly when they left and we had to tell them to put the sticks down and to leave them on the playground Bradley was the first one to do so.

And that's my pondering for today

Hierarchy's and the 2nd Playwork Principle

This being my first post I'm not sure where to start writing. I've all of play to ponder; where begin?

I guess I'll write about what's been on my mind lately, that being hierarchy's. Not so much what they are or why they exist but more so what they mean for the second playwork principle. Here it is for reference "Play is a process that is freely chosen, personally directed and intrinsically motivated".
That's right it's that one, the one people regurgitate all the time, the one I'm sick of hearing to be honest.
But hierarchy's are my focus hear and throughout my blog I'm going to resist ranting as much as possible; unless it's really necessary. Google defined hierarchy's as: "A system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority." and that'll do nicely to get the ball rolling. I'm not arguing how natural they are, that's irrelevant for now, i'm thinking about the effect they have on play. I'm thinking about the concept of having more authority, status and/or power over one's friends could influence peoples actions. And in the adult world it is naïve to argue that it doesn't; I won't list examples but look anywhere and its easy to see adult striving to be higher and higher on the "greasy pole" (Benjamin Disraeli) to be better than other people, or more likely to be seen to be better than other people, even if it's just a ruse. Having a giant plasma screen T.V may mean you're wealthy thus have more status than those who don't have a giant plasma screen T.V. But chances are it just means you have a giant plasma screen T.V.; the product doesn't truly reflect status but can have the effect of falsely portraying it.
But adults and T.V. aren't the reason I'm writing, I'm writing thinking about children's actions, about child hierarchies and how the potential or possibility to be higher on that hierarchy can influence their play.

My favourite book at the moment is The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris, he is a zoologist who turned his expertise onto the human race, it is a follow up from The Naked Ape which I have yet to read. It chiefly concerns human sociobiology and how we are biologically still hunter gathers yet have build around us a world we are not designed for.
Anyway the point being that in it he talks about how in a tribe (which we still are biologically) there is on leader, and everyone else is below him, each with their own rank and status; such behaviour can be equated to baboons or wolves. Yet he says how in the super-tribe of our modern world there have opened and infinite amount of new opportunities to be the leader, to be at the top of your own pseudo-tribe. And where no opportunities exist, a new pseudo-tribe emerges in which a new leader can be established. Sorry I didn't describe that very well. Nowadays for instance you can be a manager of an adventure playground, the owner of a shop, one of the cool kids, the leading professional in your field, the fastest runner in your town etc. Each of these open up new opportunities for people to gain status and authority where otherwise (in our biological tribal state) these opportunities would not exist. And say for instance you weren't one of the cool kid and they wouldn't have anything to do with you, splinter cell groups can split off and a new gang can be formed. Where status is denied new opportunities can be created.
Sorry if it's still hard to follow.

I always struggle getting to the point, but what I'm trying to say is that all children nowadays have the ability and opportunity to try and gain status and authority over their peers. They can each be the leader of their own gang. Although of course not everyone can be a leader and this is what has been on my mind; that children (consciously or unconsciously) trying to climb higher on the status ladder are not acting in a way that is freely chosen nor personally directed. They are acting in a way that is highly influenced by the people that are around them at all times.

Following on from that; this includes playworkers. I'm not saying that children are trying to have higher status or authority over us, but I am saying that our presence influences play more than we can imagine and is often detrimental to the play process.
Nor am I saying that hierarchies are bad in the lives of children; personally I think, they are inevitable. And nor am I saying that the second playwork principle needs to change; it's just an observation, just a thought.

And that's my pondering for today