Department of Anthropology Rice University Houston, Texas 77001

AMER. ZOOL., 14:267-273 (1974). Anthropological Views of Play EDWARD NORBECK Department of Anthropology Rice University Houston, Texas 77001 SYNOPSIS. Until very recentiy anthropology has given iiitle aiierition to the study of human play, a circumstance which reflects the Western view that play is unseemly behavior. Modern anthropologists now view play as universal and strikingly conspicuous human behavior that must be studied to reach the goal of understanding man and his culture. Physical anthropologists have concerned themselves with the play of nonhuman primates, giving attention to its bearing upon human behavior and the question of the evolutionary significance of play behavior. Cultural and social anthropologists look at play as culturally molded behavior and examine similarities and differences in its forms throughout the world. Although much variation exists in specific forms of play, all human societies are seen to be fundamentally alike in their play behavior. Greatest attention is now being given to the functional and dysfunctional significance of play in human life and the relationship of play to other elements of culture. Major subjects of current study are play and social control, play and social-psychological problems, play and communication-cognition, and play as related to a variety of other subjects including religion, law, economics, motivation toward achievement, politics, aggression, role-learning, and creativity. 267 During the period of about one century that anthropology has existed as an organized field of scholarship, the study of play has held no prominence until very recent years. This circumstance itself is a subject suitable for anthropological study. An examination of the accumulation of anthropological writings of the past century does give evidence here and there of some interest in the nature and sociocultural significance of play, but this interest has nearly always concerned restricted aspects or specific forms of play and has rarely considered play as a generic category of behavior. Until recent years, various forms of human behavior that are now seen as forms of play were seldom so regarded or treated. Notable among these categories of behavior are aesthetic activities, wit and humor, and states of psychic transcendence such as are induced by drugs. Greatest attention was formerly given to the practical significance of play in the conduct of everyday human life. This emphasis is also evident in the related fields of social and educational psychology and sociology. I refer here to such subjects of study as the didactic and socializing value of the play of children and the importance of recreation in promoting human well being and economic production. These emphases among the social sciences and their neglect of other aspects of play and of play as a broad category of phenomena seem readily comprehensible. They are reflections of prevailing Western attitudes, some centuries old, that have been supported by Christian ideology (Norbeck, 1971). The ideology or value in question is a central theme of the Protestant ethic, which regarded work as a religious obligation, and therefore a virtue, but looked upon play as sin. The prevalence and intensity of this attitude toward play has, of course, diminished during the twentieth century, but it is clear that this view has long existed even in the world of science and scholarship, so that play has seldom risen to scholarly consciousness as a subject worthy of study. It seems clear also that the obstacles in the way of the study of play have become much less powerful in recent years, a subject to which I shall return. In view of the objectives of anthropology of learning the nature of man as a living organism and the nature of his culture, the learned and socially transmitted ways of human life, the anthropological neglect of the study of play seems astonishing. Play is

268 EDWARD NORBECK universal human behavior. It exists in every human society, and it is both a biological and cultural phenomenon. In common with other species of the mammalian class, mankind is genetically endowed with the capacity or proclivity for play. Unlike nonhuman species, however, man's specific forms of play are learned, culturally molded ways of behaving that hold much in common in every society but nevertheless differ in every society. Anthropology may be described as the study of such similarities and differences of man and culture. My allusion to the recent anthropological trend toward the study of play may now be rephrased to state that a growing consensus sees human play as strikingly conspicuous, common behavior of human beings everywhere, a category of behavior so prominent that it must be studied and interpreted in order to reach the objectives of anthropology. As evidence of the modern anthropological interest in human play, I shall note that the annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association in recent years have included papers and symposia on various kinds of human play, such as wit and humor and states of psychic transcendence, and have also included a number of papers on the play of non-human primates. The annual meeting in 1973, held a few weeks ago, included for the first time a general symposium on the subject entitled "The Anthropological Study' of Human Play." These remarks may be summarized in the statement that the path now seems clear for the anthropological study of play and that anthropological interest in the subject has grown greatly. In its study of man, anthropology is both a biological and a social science, and its interests in play correspondingly concern both biological and cultural matters, often relating them. Anthropology is interested in play as man-animal behavior with biological significance, as cultural behavior with sociocultural significance, and in the relationship between its biological and cultural aspects. Following this line of thought, I shall discuss play from the viewpoints of physical anthropology, which takes as its primary concern the biological study of man, and cultural anthropology, which concerns itself primarily with man's culture. As a cultural anthropologist, I shall necessarily give greatest attention to the cultural aspects of play. PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND HUMAN PLAY An enduring assumption of physical anthropology which seems to be supported by much inferential evidence and contradicted by little or no evidence, is that all forms of living human beings are sufficiently alike so that, for most purposes of anthropological study, consideration of differences in genetically inherited traits may be omitted from consideration. A first concern with human play from a biological standpoint is, then, its significance as a universal trait of the species Homo sapiens (or, in keeping with a recent ti'end of classification which refines the classification of living man, of the sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens). Inter-societal differences in the forms of human play are thus interpreted on the basis of differences in culture rather than differences in biological makeup. The study of non-human primates as well as of man as a biological species has been a traditional concern of physical anthropology, so that many of the interests and ideas of biology and physical anthropology overlap. A biological question which has been asked but not answered in physical anthropology as well as in other fields is the biological and evolutionary significance of human play. Anthropological opinion derived from biology sees a correlation between the evolutionary position of mammalian forms and the intensity and incidence of the behavior of play. In the mammalian class, the Order of Primates is evolutionally the latest to emerge and it is among primates that play appears to be the most highly developed; that is, primates appear to play more frequently and in a greater variety of ways than other mammals. It is possible, of course, that this judgment is anthropocentric; as a member of the Order of Primates man may be able to recognize easily only those forms of play

ANTHROPOLOGICAL VIEWS OF PLAY 269 closely resembling his own. The play of his closest biological relatives, the lower primates, most clearly resembles his own and is therefore the most readily perceived as play. Against this familiar line of reasoning, however, we may note that at least certain forms of play appear to be so distinctive and general as mammalian traits that inter-specific play occurs among mammals, notably between man and other species. For example, monkeys (baboons) and apes (chimpanzees) living under natural conditions have been observed to play together, and, as we all know, the joint play of man and domestic animals is common. The correlation between position in the evolutionary scale and the progressive development of play behavior appears also to obtain within the Order of Primates, the single category of living forms that physical anthropology studies. Man appears to play more frequently than other primates and without the sharp reduction of activities of play that seem to obtain among other mammals after physical maturity has been reached.to be sure, the forms of human play change with years of life, but play seems to be an outstanding human activity throughout the entire life span. Assuming the soundness of the impression that man is the greatest mammalian player and that an evolutionary development of the biological trait of playfulness exists, the question arises of the biologically adaptive significance of play. This is an old question of concern to biology as well as anthropology, of course, and one that unquestionably was first asked by biologists. The anthropological view again an idea derived from biology is that adaptive value must be assumed, for otherwise natural selection would not have favored the universality and progressive development of play behavior. How play might have served adaptively remains mysterious to anthropologists as well as to biologists, and it is probably a question that can be answered only through the joint research of biology, psychology, neurophysiology, physical anthropology, and still other scientific fields. A line of inquiry possibly leading to an answer is given by the descriptiveinterpretive concepts of "foetalization," "paedomorphosis," and "neoteny," which are used in both biology and physical anthropology. Physical anthropologists have characterized Homo sapiens as markedly retaining foetal, infantile, and juvenile physical traits in adulthood, and they have long noted a progressive evolutionaly trend in the Order of Primates of proportionate lengthening of the period of physical immaturity. The prolonged period of immaturity and helplessness of human beings after birth has been seen to have survival value in a number of ways. Included among these are the creating of dependence of the immature upon adults, thereby fostering sociality as a genetically transmitted human characteristic. Sociality, in turn, is seen to foster the growth of kin and other human social groups, which successfully adjust to the environment by joint action and the division of labor. Moreover, the long period of immaturity is seen as a period of plasticity of behavior that fosters the assimilation of learning or culture, man's primary means of adaptation, and is thus seen to foster both the growth of culture and the survival of the human beings best suited for the creation and assimilation of culture. It is possible to think that (i) the intensified play of man and (ii) the human traits of foetalization, paedomorphism, neoteny, and long physical immaturity are linked, and that the selective value of the play impulse relates to the linkage. This notion assumes that, although man is a life-long player, his activities of play are like those of other mammals in being most intense during the period of physical immaturity. Whether or not this suggestion of linkage has interpretive value is unclear. During the past decade, anthropological field studies of non-human primates have given pointed attention to forms of play, and current studies continue to do so. Whether or not these may be compared and arranged in an evolutionary framework that will shed light on the adaptive significance of play is as yet uncertain. It seems certain that best results will come from combining these anthropological studies with research in other disciplines that concerns mammals

270 EDWARD NORBECK in general and also non-mammalian species. Another possible avenue of study bearing on the question of the biologically adaptive significance of play is a matter that has occasionally been noted by primatologists and biologists studying non-human mammals. The activities of play of mammals appear to be most common and intense at times of disjunction or discontinuity of one kind or another, changes that imply, foster, or force changes in behavior. The end of sustained activity of non-play marks a period of intense play. Changes in atmospheric conditions, such as the beginning or end of rainfall, may be times of intense play. The activities of play seem thus to be part of a behavioral cycle that is composed of sleeping, eating, and various other activities, some of which bear no standardized names but all of which are vital to the existence of organisms. Human play similarly occurs most frequently and intensely at the beginning or end of periods of sustained activity of a single kind so that it may be conceived as a break in pace, a view that appears to reflect the Western idea that work is "proper" activity and play is only "indulgence." Perhaps a more useful view is that play is one of the several cyclic kinds of behavior of man and all other living forms. The human cycle may be seen as calendrical, following daily and annual routines. The great festive periods of human societies of the past have been religious events, and also major occasions for play. An examination of ethnographic accounts of societies of the world shows a close correlation between the great festivals and seasonal activities. The greatest celebrations mark the beginnings and ends of seasonal economic activities such as hunting, gathering wild foods, clearing ground for cultivation, planting, and harvesting. It is evident from these frequently speculative remarks concerning biological aspects of human play that much remains to be done by physical anthropology. Main trends of study at the present are observations of the play of non-human primates. CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND HUMAN PLAY As a preliminary step before discussing the study of play in cultural anthropology, I shall give a provisional definition of human play. Physical anthropology has studied the play of non-human primates, and has therefore presumably followed a biological definition of play. Human play differs strikingly from the play of non-human mammals in two ways. All of its forms, including motor activities such as sports, are culturally molded so that human play may be seen as the cultural expression of innate capacities (Norbeck, 1968). As such, play varies from society to society. The second marked distinction is that certain categories or classes of human play have no recognizable counterparts among non-human species. These are forms of human play that depend upon man's unique ability to symbolize, that is, to attach meaning arbitrarily to things and events. Man's principal way of symbolizing is by speech, and many of man's activities of play depend upon this or other modes of symbolism. Wit and humor are noteworthy examples of kinds of human play of which non-human forms are incapable. No consensus has been reached in cultural anthropology on a definition of play and, to my knowledge, no great argument exists as yet over the matter. I have defined human play as characteristic behavior of mankind at all ages of life that arises from a genetically inherited stimulus or proclivity and is distinguished by the combination of traits of being voluntary, somehow pleasurable, distinct temporally from other behavior, and distinctive in having a makebelieve or psychically transcendental quality. Definitions in biology that have some depth have often held that the goals of play are non-utilitarian, an idea that I have found troublesome. The goals of certain forms of human play, such as caustic humor, seem often to be consciously utilitarian, and the presumed adaptive value of play in biological evolution is certainly in some sense implicitly "utilitarian." Perhaps it is suitable to state that the manifest goals of play are primarily expressive (emotional or affective) rather than instrumental (practical) except among professional players. The goals of professional players may, of course, be primarily instrumental, but I shall eliminate them from

ANTHROPOLOGICAL VIEWS OF PLAY 271 consideration. Sexual intercourse also depends upon an innate, biologically inherited stimulus; among human beings professionals in sexual intercourse exist, but this circumstance does not alter the fundamentally biological nature of sexual intercourse. Following the definition given above, human play includes sports, games, dancing, wit and humor, theatrical performances and mimicry of less formalized kinds, music, the arts and other branches of aesthetics, fantasy, and transcendental psychic states such as are achieved by suggestion, autosuggestion, and the ingestion of drugs and other substances that alter the sensibilities. Cultural anthropology looks upon human play as a biologically rooted proclivity that is locally modified by conditions of culture unique to each society, and, to some extent, by limiting and permissive circumstances of the physical environment. For the most part, biological considerations are set aside, and the study of human play is then primarily a study of similarities and differences in culture. This approach to the study of play is unexceptional in cultural anthropology and is characteristic of the study of other kinds of human behavior that rest upon or relate directly to universal biological or man-animal behavior. The members of all societies eat, sleep, breathe, excrete, walk, and have sexual relations with the opposite sex. Among the societies of the world, however, the norms or modes of these kinds of behavior cover a considerable range; these particular forms are learned and are thus cultural. The prevailing forms of play of distinct societies of comparable levels of cultural development are never identical even when the societies live in similar physical environments. Attempts by cultural anthropology to understand inter-societal similarities and differences in human play have so far been of small rather than large scale and have emphasized the collection of data rather than their interpretation. The grand comparative study lies in the future. The procedure of interpretation has followed traditional methods and assumptions of cultural anthropology. Culture, the man-made part of the universe, is commonly seen as composing a system of objects, techniques, social alignments, and customs, ideas and attitudes a composite of interrelated parts which exert mutual influence on one another. Thus, the study of play entails the examination of social structure and social customs, technology and economy, and ideas, values and attitudes that include religious ideology. Following this procedure, it is possible to shed light on both differences in human play and on similarities. Fundamental similarities, such as those indicated in my listing of the forms of human play, are seen to reflect the fundamental unity of mankind in biopsychological characteristics. All of the classes or categories of human play I have listed are known to every society. Specific forms vary, and social control over forms of play has encouraged certain forms and discouraged others, or, as exemplified by the set of values called the Protestant ethic, has even attempted to suppress all forms of play. These words may be summarized in the statement that cultural anthropology sees the prevailing forms of play of any society as being congruent with other elements of its culture. Thus the play of any society is seen to reflect other features of its culture including values and sentiments that pervade all activities of life and of which the members of society are not always conscious or fully conscious. This idea of the congruence of play and other elements of the system of culture is generally acceptable in cultural anthropology, but attempts have seldom been made to point out the general congruence of play with the total culture of specific societies or to see play as a reflection of pervasive cultural values. The concern has instead been with the functional relationships between play and other distinguishable and limited parts of culture. The range of studies of this kind that concern play in general or certain forms of play is large and diverse and may be placed under three descriptive headings which often overlap: (i) the socially and psychologically supportive functions or effects of play; (ii) the socially and psychologically disruptive effects of play; (iii) the relationship of play to other major elements

272 EDWARD NORBECK. or categories of culture. These anthropological studies probably hold little immediate or special interest to participants in a symposium oriented primarily toward biological aspects of play. I shall accordingly give here only a brief idea of their nature and range by listing a selection of the topics discussed in the recent symposium on human play at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association. Play and social control. Play is seen to operate in a variety of ways as a force promoting social conformity and thereby social harmony. For example, play in various forms is seen as an institutionalized and orderly channel for the expression and resolution of both inter- and intra-societal conflicts and hostilities; it is thus both a safetyvalve and an index of social and psychological tensions. The social significance of satirical mimicry, wit, and humor is similarly seen as a forceful sanction for normative behavior. Play and social-psychological problems. This subject has particular relevance to Western societies, where play has been a matter of both scholarly and popular concern for many years. Subjects of study have included the relationship between play and mental health and psychological and social disturbances related to the Western attitude of exalting work and regarding play as frivolity. An especially acute modem problem is the seeking of psychic transcendence which I have classified as a form of play by drugs and other illegal means. Any cultural anthropologist knows that transcendental psychic states are common human behavior and that many societies of the world have institutionalized transcendence in ways that simultaneously permit and control it, and thus lead to no social disturbance. One series of anthropological studies has dealt with play and schizophrenia, specifically dealing with the symbolic ways by which human beings inform others that their behavior is make-believe or play (e.g., Bateson, 1955). Play and linguistics, communication, cognition, and symbolism. This closely related group of subjects finds in the study of play a rich source of information about the ways in which people symbolically indicate by features of language, facial expressions, gestures, and bodily stances that their behavior is play (Bateson, 1955). These data offer to shed light on features of language that have so far been little noted and, especially, to contribute to the furthering of studies of human cognition, communication, and symbolism by pointing to similarities and differences in the symbols of play and thereby pointing also to uniformities or universals in patterns of human thought. Related research may be found in physical anthropology in such current research as the study of the "play face" of man and the lower primates (Chevalier-Skolnikoff, 1973). Religion and play. The relationship between religion and play in human societies has been long and intimate, and the great occasions for play in the annual cycle of human activities have been religious events. Until recent times, a principal role of religion with respect to play has been to provide a permissive, but at the same time controlling, channel for expression of play impulses (Norbeck, 1974). The decline of this functional aspect of religion has obvious bearing upon our current problems of inability to play and illegal forms of play. Still other subjects of investigation that lie on the horizon include play and work in their relation to motivation toward achievement, play and law, play and politics, play and aggression, and play and creativity or cultural innovation. Participants in this symposium might now reasonably ask what bearing these studies have upon play as a phenomenon applying to non-human animals and to forms of life in general. Although these are principally studies of cultural differences among societies of man, let us note that they are all in one important sense biological concerns since they are studies of the behavior of a single species of life. Anthropology is fundamentally a comparative study, aiming to include in its scrutiny all societies and cultures of man and all biological varieties of man. In this scrutiny,

ANTHROPOLOGICAL VIEWS OF PLAY 273 physical anthropology also includes the various species of non-human primates. Thus, anthropology has the special role in the study of play of providing comparative information on the behavior of man and of his evolutionary relatives. Comparative data on human play accumulated to date by anthropology form a sizable mountain of raw data. Examination of differences in human play clearly points at the same time to similarities and to universal traits and forms of human play, information that seems vital to gaining an understanding of play as a biological phenomenon. REFERENCES Bateson, G. 1955. The message "This is Play," p. 145-242. In B. Schaffer [ed.], Group processes. Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, New York. Chevalier-Skolnikoff, S. 1973. The primate play face: a possible key to the determinants and evolution o play. Paper delivered at annual meeting o American Anthropological Association. IMHUCLK, E. 1568. Human play and its cultural expression. Humanitas 5 (l):43-55. Norbeck, E. 1971. Men at play. Natur. Hist. 80 (10) :48-53. Norbeck, E. 1974. Religion and human play. In A. Bharati [ed.], World anthropology. Mouton Publishers, The Hague. (In press)