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.
