Play Isn't Silly, Play Isn't Silly at All

You'd think that people would've had enough of silly love songs

But I look around me and I see it isn't so

Some people want to fill the world with silly love songs

And what's wrong with that?

I'd like to know

'Cause here I go again.

                          ~Wings (Paul McCartney)

On her album Cowboy Carter, Beyonce covers and updates Dolly Parton's heart wrenching classic Jolene. Whereas the original is about a woman in love begging for mercy from a rival who has set her sights on her man, this new version is about a woman in love threatening that same woman. As Parton said about the new version, "Beyoncé is giving that girl some trouble and she deserves it!"

If an alien from another planet were to try to understand "love" by listening to our love songs, it would likely conclude that we don't know what we're talking about. Love is kind. Love is a battle field. Love is blind. Love is a second hand emotion. Love saves. Love is a lie. Even more confusing, I imagine, would be to realize that these songs are mostly about romantic love: that there is also parental love, the love of a child for a parent, spiritual love, and love as a universal, unifying force. We love our cereal. We love that love song. Love makes the world go 'round. People die for love. And for the same reason that we will never run out of love songs, our alien researcher would never reach the end of a definition because there is always something else or someone else or some way else to experience that crazy little thing called love.

Just as there is no agreed upon definition for "love" there is no agreed upon definition for "play." Defining play is every bit as elusive as defining love, probably because it includes emotion, intelligence, and behavior that is universal in terms of both time and space. The best we can hope for, for all practical purposes, is to identify characteristics or conditions, that when they exist, would indicate that a person is playing, but an all inclusive definition is far beyond us.

And that's fine, because on a day-to-day basis, none of us need a definition of play. We know it when we see it, or feel it, and that's enough, which is likewise true for love. I mean, if you've got it in your life, why mess around trying to pick it apart, right? Both tend to disappear when looked at too closely, so the best plan is to use it or lose it.

Unfortunately, that's exactly what scientists do, pick things apart in order to understand them, and in our modern world, if science can't explain it, if there is no data to discuss, then it's nearly impossible to get policymakers, for instance, to take it seriously. Without an agreed upon definition, play, like love, appears to the hardheaded decision-makers as silly.

I think this is why we've had so much difficultly creating a cohesive and persuasive body of research to support play-based learning. If you can't define what you are studying, the tools of the scientific method, like creating replicable experiments, won't work.

In his book The Genesis of Animal Play, evolutionary biologist Gordon Burghardt proposes five characteristics that must exist in order for us to call behavior play: 1) It must be nonfunctional (at least not obviously connected to survival or reproduction), 2) It must be purely voluntary and not forced by external influence, 3) It must be distinct from the animal's other behaviors, 4) It must involve repeated movements, but with variations and modifications, and 5) It can only occur when the animal is well-fed, safe, and healthy.

Of course, not all scientists agree with Burghardt. Indeed, I imagine that many of the play-based practitioners reading this have quibbles, and therein lies the challenge we face, I think. If we are to get policymakers, administrators, parents, and others to understand the power and centrality of childhood play, our modern world demands a robust body of research that "proves" it.

Over the decades I've tried to share the science and data about play, but the current state of affairs is that it's all over the place, often unconnected and contradictory, usually because each study seems to start with a different idea of what constitutes play. There is over a century of play research out there, but it doesn't feel like we are any closer to understanding play within the context of human evolution and learning than we were 100 years ago.

Perhaps that's because play, like love, is always in the eye of the beholder.

Love doesn't come in a minute

Sometimes it doesn't come at all

I only know that when I'm in it

It isn't silly, love isn't silly

Love isn't silly at all.

******

Despite our inability to agree on definitions, we know it when we see it, even if it takes different forms in different places, with different people. The bottom line is that the scientific consensus is us that young children learn most of what they need to learn through play, through their self-selected activities, through asking and answering their own questions. Whether you are just starting out as a play-based educator, are a veteran of play, or are a parent/caregiver interested in providing children a playful childhood, please consider joining us. Teacher Tom's Play-Based Learning is a 6-week foundational course on my popular play-based pedagogy, designed to make you think deeply about the role you play in the lives of children, and give you the inspiration, insight and tools needed to create an environment of genuine play for the children in your life. I can't wait to share it with you! For more information and to register, click here

I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!