Cross-cultural misconceptions were a key ingredient to imperialism. \u00a0To\u00a0the conquered these misconceptions led to a gross underestimating of those doing the conquering, as for the conquerors misconceptions led to an undervaluing of foreign cultures and thus leading to the need to trivialize and eradicate them. \u00a0Caillois’s analysis\u00a0of primitive society’s religious rituals as forms of “play” or games is a perfect example of these pervasive misconceptions. \u00a0While to the outsider these rituals may seem like games, because in their own society such undertakings would be considered pursuits of madmen or possibly carnies, to the people performing the religious rituals were an extremely serious and important part of their society and they themselves would most likely not use play or games when describing them. \u00a0The theory of games in cultural progress is a fascinating one, which can be basically described\u00a0as the relationship between the level of games played and the level of civilization achieved. \u00a0Complexity of the games played by a culture thus correlates to\u00a0overall societal complexity. \u00a0Caillois’ assumption is heavily based in westernized ideas of civilization, and is written by a citizen of the nation that championed the ideas of the civilizing mission. Complexity of game play and rules do reflect a certain human progression, but more so in the acquisition of knowledge and the application there of. \u00a0Complex games and play were developed in the western world as distractions from the monotony and solitude of modern life. “Play”, Caillois states, “presupposes not solitude, but company,” and “is an escape from responsibility and routine” (p. 40, 6). \u00a0To plaster the western view of games onto a foreign culture, does nothing but make a fool of the observer. \u00a0While religious rituals do promote togetherness, like western games, they are in no way free of responsibility and routine, they are the very essence of both. While the religious rituals do fit Caillois’\u00a0game categories of simulation (mimicry) and vertigo (ilinx), they only do so to an outsider. \u00a0Were there not actual games practiced by such peoples? Ones where a limited number of players, respecting a certain set of rules, “played” for a limited amount of time, as an escape from the normal comings and goings of life. \u00a0Caillois describes the religious festival as follows:<\/p>\n
“In order to yield themselves to spirits that exist only in their minds and to suddenly experience the brutal transport, the performers must evoke and excite them, must push their selves to the final debacle that permits the rare intrusion. To this end they employ thousands of artifices, any one of which may suspect — fasting, drugs, hypnosis, monotonous or strident music, clatter, paroxysms, of noise and movement, intoxication, shouting, and spasms” (p. 88).<\/p>\n
Caillois is arguing for a universal adult definition of play, since historically games and play have been equated to be nonsensical pursuits of children, thus leading to its subservient role in academia. \u00a0Since his only example of adult play in non-westernized, “savage” cultures is their religious rituals then his argument is invalid. \u00a0The rituals he cites\u00a0do not fit into the realm of games that he has proposed, due to the very important fact that these religious rituals were not separate from their normal life, it was<\/em> their life. \u00a0While to the outsider a separation from reality through masks and erratic behavior, or what Caillois describes as vertigo, might be seen as a performance, to the followers of the faith they are participating in something that gives their life meaning and a higher purpose. \u00a0Christians could be viewed in the same way, even those of today. Christians in church get wrapped up in their faith, shout, they claim, uncontrollably, and sing and dance to their god. Is this then play?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Cross-cultural misconceptions were a key ingredient to imperialism. \u00a0To\u00a0the conquered these misconceptions led to a gross underestimating of those doing the conquering, as for the conquerors misconceptions led to an undervaluing of foreign cultures and thus leading to the need to trivialize and eradicate them. \u00a0Caillois’s analysis\u00a0of primitive society’s religious rituals as forms of “play”…<\/p>\n