This really deserves repeating, "in play it is better to be subordinate and vulnerable than to be dominant and invulnerable."
Considering that play has been increasingly absent in our (the US, anyway) culture since the 1980s, it then should be no surprise that people have a harder time being vulnerable with each other. And, in turn, are less cooperative.
While I do not care for the way the word "vulnerable" is used in popular culture, I do agree with this point. To be responsive to someone after all is allowing the possibility of their influencing you, and that is a kind of vulnerability.
“Again, the preferred position generally is the more vulnerable one, the one that would normally be that of the subordinate or loser (in a fight) or the prey (in a predatory encounter), not that of the dominant animal.”
Thank you for your insights.
You mention games such as tag and most people preferring to be chased, I would be interested to know if there are differences in the play of boys and girls. If females are more likely to display submissive behaviour and if age has a bearing upon it.
The age element could be interesting especially if you were to look at the types of play children engage in at different ages within those who are schooled and those who grow up within the home education community. I have a hunch that without the competitive and ageist peer pressure influence of school the types of play children engage in would be more playful and cooperative till far older ages.
Yes, my observation is that children involved in Self-Directed Eduction rather than a forced, competitive curriculum generally continue to play more playfully and cooperatively than do children in typical schools. But my evidence is anecdotal, not deriving from a systematic study.
Dr. Gray (I use this form of address to evoke your serious side), do you find it difficult to stay serious while talking about play? I know that I personally have difficulty staying on topic (but that's another topic).
I wonder if when dogs chase cars, they feel like it is the car having most of the fun.
It was news to me that rats played at all, and especially interesting that they would prefer to adopt submissive positions from which they would try to escape; especially interesting as I think this reflects my own attitude toward society in general - I am not a rebel, but I do enjoy trying to find ways to get out of prison. (Ummm ... not literally.)
I can also identify with the thrill of being chased. In chase games as a kid, if I were the pursuer I would always wonder: what am I supposed to do with them if I catch them? Much like as is true with dogs and cars I guess.
I remember Gregory Bateson, in Steps to an Ecology of Mind, offered the interpretation that dogs play fight because they don't have a language capable of negation, of saying "I won't fight", so instead they indicate the possibility of fighting without actually fighting, as a way of communicating "I don't want to fight". Early hominids were perhaps in a similar situation, at stages where they (I assume) only had sign language.
I also wonder to what degree humans might have observed the cooperative behavior of pack animals, and modeled their behavior.
And I also wonder how this relates to how we see that in some groups of Primates, there is a powerful Alpha Male in a dominant hierarchy (and likely a harem of females), compared to other groups where males are smaller and females have a more equal role. What pattern would we expect to have seen in early hominids? And how would this affect their willingness to play? Conversely, could lesser males who had learned to play have, in the process, learned how to cooperate well enough to oust the Alpha Males?
I will address most of these issues in upcoming letters. But here are quick responses to some of what you ask.
-If you look back you will see that, in parentheses, I noted that carnivorous animals are often exceptions to the rule that the preferred position is to be chased. They like to chase as well as be chased. Chasing for them is practice in predation. For dogs, cars are play substitutes for big game and tennis balls are play substitutes for small game.
-As I will point out in a future letter, it can be argued that we are pack animals. Hunter-gatherers hunted collectively in groups, especially when hunting big game, and that is one of the reasons why humans needed to extend play into adulthood, allowing for such cooperation.
I see now that you had quite a lot to say about these things, in your article "The Play Theory of Hunter-Gatherer Egalitarianism", cited at the end of this letter.
I notice that you also chose to check out the book it was in from the library, rather than pay $100 for it. ☺
I believe that Aristotle mentioned that of the various forms of government that had been tried on the numerous Greek islands, communism was one, although I don't remember him giving a description of how well it worked for them, and what "communism" meant to them. I think of this because in many ways hunter-gatherer egalitarianism sounds like communism, communism with a little "c" we might say, rather than State Socialism.
(Personally I remain a fan of Capitalism, but of the "Capitalism that doesn't start from zero" variety espoused by Andrew Yang. Still, there would have been worse places to get born into than a hunter-gatherer tribe. The real problem with a hunter-gatherer existence, as I see it, is that they are inevitably driven into extinction by more powerful neighbors.)
This really deserves repeating, "in play it is better to be subordinate and vulnerable than to be dominant and invulnerable."
Considering that play has been increasingly absent in our (the US, anyway) culture since the 1980s, it then should be no surprise that people have a harder time being vulnerable with each other. And, in turn, are less cooperative.
While I do not care for the way the word "vulnerable" is used in popular culture, I do agree with this point. To be responsive to someone after all is allowing the possibility of their influencing you, and that is a kind of vulnerability.
“Again, the preferred position generally is the more vulnerable one, the one that would normally be that of the subordinate or loser (in a fight) or the prey (in a predatory encounter), not that of the dominant animal.”
Thank you for your insights.
You mention games such as tag and most people preferring to be chased, I would be interested to know if there are differences in the play of boys and girls. If females are more likely to display submissive behaviour and if age has a bearing upon it.
I don't know of sex differences in this, but concerning age the evidence is that the preference to be chased exists even in those sports engaged in by adults. See my Psychology Today essay on this topic here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/freedom-learn/200811/chasing-games-and-sports-why-do-we-be-chased
The age element could be interesting especially if you were to look at the types of play children engage in at different ages within those who are schooled and those who grow up within the home education community. I have a hunch that without the competitive and ageist peer pressure influence of school the types of play children engage in would be more playful and cooperative till far older ages.
Yes, my observation is that children involved in Self-Directed Eduction rather than a forced, competitive curriculum generally continue to play more playfully and cooperatively than do children in typical schools. But my evidence is anecdotal, not deriving from a systematic study.
Well, I think boys are slightly more likely to be carnivores, and carnivores like to give chase, so ... ☺
Dr. Gray (I use this form of address to evoke your serious side), do you find it difficult to stay serious while talking about play? I know that I personally have difficulty staying on topic (but that's another topic).
I wonder if when dogs chase cars, they feel like it is the car having most of the fun.
It was news to me that rats played at all, and especially interesting that they would prefer to adopt submissive positions from which they would try to escape; especially interesting as I think this reflects my own attitude toward society in general - I am not a rebel, but I do enjoy trying to find ways to get out of prison. (Ummm ... not literally.)
I can also identify with the thrill of being chased. In chase games as a kid, if I were the pursuer I would always wonder: what am I supposed to do with them if I catch them? Much like as is true with dogs and cars I guess.
I remember Gregory Bateson, in Steps to an Ecology of Mind, offered the interpretation that dogs play fight because they don't have a language capable of negation, of saying "I won't fight", so instead they indicate the possibility of fighting without actually fighting, as a way of communicating "I don't want to fight". Early hominids were perhaps in a similar situation, at stages where they (I assume) only had sign language.
I also wonder to what degree humans might have observed the cooperative behavior of pack animals, and modeled their behavior.
And I also wonder how this relates to how we see that in some groups of Primates, there is a powerful Alpha Male in a dominant hierarchy (and likely a harem of females), compared to other groups where males are smaller and females have a more equal role. What pattern would we expect to have seen in early hominids? And how would this affect their willingness to play? Conversely, could lesser males who had learned to play have, in the process, learned how to cooperate well enough to oust the Alpha Males?
Really enjoying these.
I will address most of these issues in upcoming letters. But here are quick responses to some of what you ask.
-If you look back you will see that, in parentheses, I noted that carnivorous animals are often exceptions to the rule that the preferred position is to be chased. They like to chase as well as be chased. Chasing for them is practice in predation. For dogs, cars are play substitutes for big game and tennis balls are play substitutes for small game.
-As I will point out in a future letter, it can be argued that we are pack animals. Hunter-gatherers hunted collectively in groups, especially when hunting big game, and that is one of the reasons why humans needed to extend play into adulthood, allowing for such cooperation.
I see now that you had quite a lot to say about these things, in your article "The Play Theory of Hunter-Gatherer Egalitarianism", cited at the end of this letter.
I notice that you also chose to check out the book it was in from the library, rather than pay $100 for it. ☺
I believe that Aristotle mentioned that of the various forms of government that had been tried on the numerous Greek islands, communism was one, although I don't remember him giving a description of how well it worked for them, and what "communism" meant to them. I think of this because in many ways hunter-gatherer egalitarianism sounds like communism, communism with a little "c" we might say, rather than State Socialism.
(Personally I remain a fan of Capitalism, but of the "Capitalism that doesn't start from zero" variety espoused by Andrew Yang. Still, there would have been worse places to get born into than a hunter-gatherer tribe. The real problem with a hunter-gatherer existence, as I see it, is that they are inevitably driven into extinction by more powerful neighbors.)