Ambivalence in Play and Ritual

Life is not breath, but action; to live is to make use of our organs, our senses, our faculties, every part of ourselves which gives us the feeling of our own existence.

The significance of play and ritual is manifest. Each activity is so basic and revealing of our humanity, that description and explanation for its appearance in cultural life involves nearly every discipline. In addition, and quite understandably, anthropologists associate the two; at least their surface qualities seem strikingly similar. It is possible to account for their relationship on another level; both play (this includes children's play, as well as more formally structure games) and ritual (dramatized play) creatively resolve the ambivalence attending novel stages of personal and social development.

All discussions of play and ritual recognize the contributions of the cultural historian Huizinga. Homo Ludens is a touchstone, the book to which we always return. Huizinga's initial insight that the “play element” extends deep into the culture is amply demonstrated in his analysis of ritual. There has been some controversy on the primacy of play, and at times Huizinga refers to a “play-instinct.” He says, “in the twin union of play and culture, play is primary.” And having said that, he notes, “but all things considered, I do not think we are falling into … error when we characterize ritual as play.”1

There are problems in Huizinga's structural separation of play from culture and the real world. Ehrman, in his article, “Homo Ludens Revisited,” highlights the dilemma:

Play is not played against a background of a fixed, stable reality which would serve as its standard. All reality is caught up in the play of the concepts which designate it.

Page 73

Reality is thus not capable of being objectified, nor subjectified. However, it is never neutral. Nor can it be neutralized.2

Erhman's position is that play and reality cannot be separated, and in the last analysis “the distinguishing characteristic o