When Will We Wake Up?

German psychologist Karl Groos was among the first researchers to take play seriously. Working in the late 1800's, he is credited with what has been called, alternatively, the training, practice, or instrumentalist theory of play. In his book The Play of Animals, he wrote, "The animal does not play because he is young. He has a period of youth because he must play."

The basic idea is that mammals enjoy a relatively long juvenile period because they need that time to play, which is necessary to develop the skills and habits necessary for survival. Humans have evolved by far the longest period of youth of any species, mammal or otherwise, which means Homo sapiens "must play" for at least a decade, perhaps longer, in order to fully develop their capacity for survival.

While some of Groos' ideas have fallen by the wayside, this central idea, the practice theory, remains at the center of play research. During the mid-twentieth century a companion theory of play emerged, usually called the social bonding hypothesis. As science writer David Toomey puts it in his book The Kingdom of Play, this theory posits "that as animals nip, tussle, and give chase, they are learning -- in the phrase memorialized by kindergarten report cards -- to 'play well with others.'"

I find myself often reflecting on these theories as I watch children play. 

Fighting and fleeing remain essential for other species. Nearly every day, I see rabbits playfully chasing one another which is clearly increasing the likelihood that they will be able to evade coyotes and other predators. All spring I've been watching mocking birds fight off the ravens, a skill that I see them practice among themselves as fledglings throughout the summer and into the fall. 

Modern humans, fortunately, generally have little need to do all that fighting and fleeing as a matter of survival. We aren't nearly as concerned with being eaten by, say, a bear or a tiger, as our ancient ancestors were, yet our young still engage in play fighting and games of chase. That's because evolution operates on a scale of millennia and even as we've reduced the risk of becoming prey or the necessity to be predators, the play, or training, instincts remain.

As our species' has moved away from a world of eat-or-be-eaten, however, we have moved toward a world in which "playing well with others" is increasingly essential. When I watch children wrestle, I don't see fighting. I see children engaged in a deep connection in which they must remain constantly aware of the emotional and physical state of their playmate. They quickly learn that if they aren't careful, if they hurt themselves or someone else, the game will come to an end. The motivation to keep the game going, as Peter Gray points out in his book Free to Learn, is a powerful motivator in many of these social bonding games. 

Sadly, many adults break up this type of game as a matter of course, and we should if someone is getting hurt or when actual fighting breaks out. But when we understand the function of this type of play, when we stand near, but without intervening, we see that they are exploring one another. Yes, they may take things right to the edge, sometimes going a little too far, but that's vital to understanding limits. Most of the time when I watch children wrestle, they are looking into one another's faces, beaming, but also "reading" expressions as a way to understand where those limits are.

We see this happening in all manner of play as children bicker (negotiate) their way through their dramatic or constructive or artistic play. When modern schools limit play, they rob children of the opportunity to learn how to play well with others and replace it with adult imposed rules enforced by the threat of punishment. In other words, instead of learning to play well with others, they learn to obey, which is not the same thing.

Play creates major challenges for modern schooling, which views wrestling and running, and, frankly, most other play behavior as, at best, a way to burn off excess energy (which was, not incidentally, the leading theory of the purpose of play during the Victorian era before Groos and others started taking play seriously). At worst, play is seen as a distraction that must be strictly curtailed and limited to recess. And according to the Center for Disease Control, the average American school child spends less than 30 minutes a day at recess, barely enough time to get a game going, let alone learn anything from it.

In other words, the evolutionarily necessary urge to play has essentially been banned in our schools and replaced by a system of rewards and punishments. 

To paraphrase Groos, our children have a period of youth because they must play. For most of human history this wasn't even something we had to think about. It was a given that children would play. They had the time, space, and permission to train themselves in necessary physical skills and learn to play well with others. The only children in today's world who get to play in this way are those whose parents make a special effort to make it happen.

We bemoan the fact that today's youth are increasingly unfit, uncoordinated, anxious,  dependent, depressed, and socially awkward. We blame screens, diet, vaccines, and pretty much everything except the obvious. Children must play, but we just don't let them. It's a crisis with an obvious solution. When will we wake up?

******

I've been writing about play-based learning almost every day for the past 14 years. I've recently gone back through the 4000+ blog posts(!) I've written since 2009. Here are my 10 favorite in a nifty free download. Click here to get yours.

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!