A Continuing Overview of the Literature

Because play is tricky, many categories overlap and lead into each other. Sometimes a category is betwixt and between other categories. These topics surround and circumambulate the central theme of play. Before reviewing the literature, I will give a general idea of the scope of my dissertation. I began an exploration of cosmic play, or lila—the play of consciousness—play at its most cosmological and ineffable level. Related to this is maya, the Hindu notion of all creation being an illusion. I also explored play as a nonordinary state of consciousness. This focus on cosmic play is consonant with the Telesphoros leading us to the land of dreams.

From there, I explored play through the trickster nature of Hermes, his liminality, synchronicities, and the transcendent function, as well as other tricksters, including Prometheus (Tarnas, 1995). I also explored other related archetypal aspects, including the divine child (Jung & Kerényi, 1963/1993), the eternal return, and the death-rebirth aspects present in play and creativity. Finally, on a more biological note, I reviewed the more instinctual aspects of play as it relates to humans, animals, and the world around us. I also looked at ideas of play from ancient cultures (Hindu, Native American, and Chinese) and modern science such as chaos and complexity theory to gain a more informed view of the nature of play. .

Play History and Theories

In an effort to situate my dissertation in the current play research, I reviewed developmental, evolutionary, and cultural theories of play (Schwartzman (1980 a, b, & c); Herron and Sutton Smith (1971); Yawkey and Pellegrini (1984); Smith (1984); Ellis (1973). Nagel (2002) provides a genealogy of play, while Bruner, Jolly and Sylva (1976) in Play-Its Role in Development and Evolution explore play in animals and man (Fagen, 1976; Groos 1976a & b) and various linguistic perspectives, as well as the notion of association and bisociation (Koestler, 1976). This volume also includes articles by Piaget (1976a, b), a major play theorist (“Symbolic Play” and “Mastery Play”) as well as K. Lorenz (1976) and Geertz’s (1976) notion of “Deep Play and Balinese Cockfighting.” Donaldson (1993), who has played with animals in the wild, rival gang members, prisoners in South Africa, and special needs children, sees play much differently. Donaldson’s concept of “original play” reveals a kind of play that is beyond categories, based on caring and connection. In his book, Playing by Heart, Donaldson shows just how far we have come from “original play” to its “adulterated” version which is mainly competition-oriented.

Levy (1978) considers play behavior in its many forms. Piers (1972) considers play’s developmental aspects. Sutton-Smith (1997) has studied different play theories extensively from a meta-level, while J. E. Combs (2000) contemplates the possibility of a new ludenic age. Play’s performative nature is considered from an anthropological perspective in Scheckner (2002) as well as in Turner (1988). The major classic works in the field are Huizinga’s (1944/1955) Homo Ludens, Caillois’s (1958/2001) Man, Play and Games (Les Jeux et Les Hommes), D. L. Miller’s (1970) Gods and Games, Erikson’s “Toys and Reality” (1985), “Play and Actuality” (1976), and Winnicott’s (1999) Playing and Reality.

Bateson also writes widely about play (1971, 1988, 1990) and speaks of play as a meta-communication and concentrates on its paradoxical nature. Hyland (1984) in considering The Question of Play develops a “stance of play,” while McLellan (1970) traces the history of play research and discusses the role and types of play in children from infancy through junior high school. Sutton Smith (1971a, b, & c) discusses play’s developmental role, as well as such subjects as boundaries, and the psychoanalytic tradition with reference to play. Sutton-Smith (1995, 1997) analyzes the many different play theories and in other writings proposes a sportive theory of play (1980) and a syntax for play and games (1971d).

Origins of play are also examined in Pellegrini (1995) The Future of Play Theory, which contains articles from Fagen (1995) on animal play and Mergen (1995) on play’s history in terms of its relics and memory. Gilmore (1971) considers play a special behavior. Play in Animals and Humans (Smith, 1984) is a collection of essays by various play theorists: Taylor-Parker (1984), and Burghardt (1984, 2005) discuss play’s evolutionary origins in animals and humans; Lancy (1984) looks at play from different anthropological perspectives, and Sutton Smith and Kelly-Byrne (1984a) discuss the idealization of play. Bruner (1976) discusses the nature and uses of immaturity, while Maxine Sheets-Johnstone focuses on movement in relation to play (1999a; 1999b; 2002, lecture). Stuart Brown, as cited above (1969; 1994; 1995; 1998; 2002, unpublished manuscript; 2003, unpublished chapter), realized the importance of play after studying the Texas tower shooter in the 1960s and as a result went on to dedicate his life to the study of play in animals and humans.

Cosmic and Cosmological Play

Swimme (2001) discusses play as being one of the primary qualities and energies of the universe in addition to creativity, allurement and enchantment. Muktananda (1971) talks about the universe as the play of consciousness. In The Cosmic Game, Grof (1998a) discusses cosmic play or lila, and considers the importance of nonordinary states of consciousness, or NOSOCs; Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow (1988, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1997) is an example of a type of nonordinary state of consciousness often associated with play, in which people experience enhanced performance and have other “peak experiences.”

Eternal Return

Grof (1998a, 2000a, 2000b) also explicates the transpersonal or archetypal nature of the birth process which is seen in Eliade’s (1954/1991b) The Myth of The Eternal Return. Van Eenwyk (1997) discusses archetypes in relation to chaos theory and the notion of strange attractors. Van Eenwyk calls eternal return, “the archetype of archetypal dynamics” (p. 114). Sheldrake, McKenna, and Abraham (1998, 2001) discuss chaos, creativity, and cosmic consciousness. Jung (1950/1990) and Von Franz (1978) also write about the rebirth archetype.

Grof’s cartography (2000a) of the psyche situates the perinatal level between the personal and transpersonal levels of the unconscious. This perinatal level is influential in informing our experience, and Grof has identified four Basic Perinatal Matrices (BPMs), relating to the womb experience and the stages of biological birth, hence the name “perinatal” meaning “around birth.” These BPMs share archetypal similarities with the eternal return; I will explore this issue in greater depth in the “Cosmic Game” chapter.

Creativity

M. Fox, (2002), Myers (1999), and H. Gardner (1993) explore the soul and anatomy of creativity, while von Franz (1978) explicates the nature of creativity in creation myths. Goswami and Goswami (1999) and Rubinov-Jacobson (2000) discuss creativity and its archetypal nature, while Moustakas (1977) explores creativity from a heuristic standpoint. Liberman (1977) discusses playfulness and its relation to creativity and imagination. Jung (1966/1978) examines creativity in The Spirit in Man, Art and Literature. Jung (1997) and von Franz (1979) also discuss active imagination, while Cobb (1992) speaks of Archetypal Imagination from duende to delight.

Trickster

Tricksters come in all different shapes and sizes. I not only looked at Jung’s article on the trickster (Jung, 1954/1990) but also Tarnas’s (1995) book Prometheus The Awakener. Grof and Tarnas (2002, seminar) see the transpersonal planetary archetype of Uranus as a “higher octave” of Mercury. Combs and Holland (2001) discuss synchronicity and the trickster, while Hyde (1998) examines the creative function of the trickster. Hynes and Doty (1993c), Eliot (1990), and Arnold (1996) discuss a wide variety of tricksters, while others focus on specific tricksters from different cultures: Lopez (1990) discusses Native American Coyote, and Kramer and Maier (1989) explore Norse Trickster Enki; Radin (1972), with commentary by Jung and Kerényi, discusses the Native American Trickster, while Pelton (1980) concentrates on the West African trickster. Jurich (1998) recounts tales of female tricksters, while Friedrich (1978) and more specifically Paris (1986) discuss Aphrodite’s liminal and wily trickster side.

To me, the most beloved trickster of all is Hermes, god of depth psychology. Much has been written about Hermes, be it entire books on him—Kerényi (1976/2003), Lopez-Pedraza (1977/1989), N. O. Brown (1990), or whole chapters—(Doty, 1980), Paris (1990), and Downing (1993), to name a few. Faivre (1995) discusses Hermes’s role in Alchemy, and Jung’s (1948/1983) “The Spirit Mercurius” is a classic. McNeely (1996), in Mercury Rising, gives an archetypal account of Hermes from his trickster nature to the consulting room, and concentrates also on women and evil. Stein (1983) discusses Hermes, in relation to midlife, liminality, and synchronicity. Neville (1992) speaks of the charm of Hermes in the postmodern age, while Hillman (1999) answers back with “A Note on Hermes Inflation.”

Synchronicity, Liminality, Paradox,
Chaos, and the Transcendent Function

Jung’s concept of archetypes as having two different poles—instinct (red) and image (blue) combine in the color purple and also in play. Archetypes are where the metaphorical rubber meets the road; where the physical meets the imaginal. Von Franz describes this spectrum in many places, notably in Creation Myths (1978), and Alchemy (1980a).

M. Fox (2002) mentions that creativity is where the divine and the human meet. Peat (1987) notes that the same is true of synchronicity, referring to synchronicity as the bridge between mind and matter. Synchronicity was explored in the writings of the following authors, too: Jung (1951/1981, 1952/1981); von Franz (1980b); Skafke (2000); Mansfield (1995); Cousineau (1997); Progoff (1973); Begg (2001); and Howell (1990) in the context of astrology.

Other aspects of the natural world and how they relate to play were explored, especially chaos theory. Gleick (1988) explicates the complex nature of chaos. Conforti (1999) relates patterns in nature to patterns in psyche. Shulman (1997) discusses chaos theory in relation to psyche and culture and its liminal nature. Like Shulman, Lewin (1992) also considers the edges of chaos and how they relate to complexity theory. Talbot (1991), in The Holographic Universe, discusses the nature of the part being contained in the whole, while DeBono (1992) concentrates on the notion of lateral thinking.

Woodman and Dickson (1996) discuss chaos’s role in the transformation of consciousness. Goodchild (2001) demonstrates the confluence of Eros and Chaos, as do Sheldrake et al. (1998, 2001), and Abraham (1994). Van Eenwyk (1997) explores chaos and archetypes as strange attractors, giving special attention to the eternal return. Jeffrey Miller (2001) explicates Jung’s notion of the transcendent function (1957/1981) as another place where opposing forces meet and are transformed. Peat (1991) links chaos theory with alchemy.

V. Turner (1988), the high priest of liminality, discusses play and paradox, along with play’s relation to ritual. In Play and Culture, Schwartzman (1980a, b, c) also examines paradox as it relates to play, while other contributors to that volume examine the structure and dimensions of ritual and play and their interrelationship (Blanchard 1980, S. J. Fox 1980). Bateson (1990) as previously mentioned discusses play in regards to paradox, liminality, and meta-communication. Cazden (1976), too, discusses play linguistically. Handelman (1980) discusses play and identity, while Grof (2002) explicates Bateson’s thoughts on play most elegantly.

Play’s developmental and applied aspects are explored in Yawkey and Pelligrini (1984) including humor (McGhee, 1984), novelty (Ellis, 1984), and the bipolar nature of play theories (Sutton-Smith and Kelly Byrne 1984b). Spariosu (1997) discusses play and liminality. Sutton-Smith (1997), as previously mentioned, takes an overview of play theories themselves and explores the ambiguous nature of the different theories of play.

Dionysus

The classic work on Dionysus by Walter Otto (1965), was examined as well Kerényi (1976/1996) and more recent works by Downing (1993) and Paris (1990). Johnson (1987) emphasizes the ecstatic aspects, and Evans (1988) emphasizes sex roles and madness, while Spariosu (1989, 1991) examines play from a Dionysian perspective, both historically and in modern scientific and philosophical discourse. Hillman (1980) discusses Dionysus in Jung’s writings and Jung’s essay on the Divine Child (Jung & Kerényi, 1963/1993) was also informative.

Bollingen Stone

Not much has been written about Jung’s Bollingen stone. Jung himself refers to the stone in his autobiography (Jung, 1961/1989) and in his letters (Jung, 1984b). Jung corresponded with Maud Oakes (1987), who wrote The Stone Speaks, a book that mainly recounts Oakes’s personal journey in relation to the stone.

Myths and “Mythellaneous”

Several volumes of myths were consulted on the different gods involved in various aspects of play—Burkert (1985), Guthrie (1955), Downing (1991, 1993, 2000), Paris (2000), Brockway (1993), J. Young (1996), and Kerényi (1951). The combined wisdom of Alan Watts (1975, 1951, 1974) and Chungliang Huang (1991, 2002a, 2002b) were surveyed to understand ancient Eastern thought concerning play. Anthropologist Steven Miller (1973) uses the notion of “galumphing” as an expression of play for its own sake, and Nachmanovitch (1990) discusses “galumphing” as play energy that is abundant in young children, puppies, and young civilizations. The term comes from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass (Carroll, 1975). I will discuss S. Miller’s (1973) article later in the prelude section.

As I entered the artistic phase of the dissertation process my outlook was informed by continuing to hold the following questions: How can understanding the nature of play help us to play more consciously: to play more and to play better? How might we develop ways to help people to transform so that they are more playful? How can we galumph more? How can play help us re-vision and re-embody our future?

End of section, continue to Method and Its Ethical Implications