Caillois Response

I can’t seem to get a solid idea on what my own definition of play is, mainly because I think it is just a matter-of-fact concept. Reading Caillois’ book was borderline dense, in my opinion. I think he delved too deep into what play is through his associations between the different types of it (i.e. the graph). The remark that games social function influence culture and society is a statement of color. I agree with Caillois’ suggestion that games are representative of the culture and era they are invented in, but I think investigation into the different realms of play as either “free” or “not productive” and the like, becomes convoluted.

A lot of what Caillois talked about seemed to be common sense as well. He mentions that in games and play the players like the stimulus and enjoy getting reinforcement or a response alongside an “attentive and sympathetic audience”(40). That is just the nature of humans and animals. Stimulus and response.  This idea biologically shifts into the competitive instinct that is in all humans. A person may be submissive, but the will to survive is innate in all of us. I think that competition heavily accounts for the success, progress, and survival of games. Without it, there would be no substance to games.

Even solo games there is a sense of competition. In this accord, games and play can differ. There is no competition in playing house (unless you had some…peculiar rules playing house as a child) just the pleasure that comes from the imaginary world that is created. Similarly, Caillois talks about identification. I think this dips into the topic of competition nicely. The desire to win, to be number one, is reflected in identifying oneself the one who is triumphant. Caillois gives identifying with superheroes as an example. The desire to win which is driven from competition is reflected in humans pursuit of associating the winner of both games and play.

Leave a Reply