Ridiculously long time not blogging on the Play Journal, I agree, but have been dealing with family illness (all well now), paradigm revolution in the music business, constitutional evolution in Scotland... But with some luck, I'm back.
And to kick off, an interview conducted with the Croatian online journal Via Positiva - nothing new, but I find that answering familiar questions allows me to update the Play Ethic without too much labour...
Pat Kane Interview with Via Positiva, January 2008
1) What is the play ethic? Why do we need it? Why should we leave the work ethic behind?
The Play Ethic is what truly supersedes the Work Ethic, and is more relevant to our times than the Leisure Ethic. The Work Ethic was a story about self-discipline and self-denial that the first age of industrial capitalism needed its workers to believe in (basically to watch the clock and accept their place in the factory system). The Leisure Ethic (what we used to know as the 'leisure society') was a mid-to-late 20th century story about the benefits of affluence - that work would be reduced to a minimum by technology and automation, and that we would have to get skilled at recreation, relaxation, self-improvement. The Play Ethic comes after the internet, and globalisation, and is a story about how to live (or try and live) a coherent life in a dynamic, unstable and emergent world. We have an innate resource by which we can do this - our formative experience as players, that burst of enthusiasm and experimentation that forges the adults we become. We need to recover the power of play in our lives, to be capable for this new world.
2) Who can become a player? How can someone implement core components of the play ethic in his/hers life? Are there parts of life that shouldn’t or can’t involve play?
As we all start out as players - that's how humans come to consciousness and comptence - we can all become players again. Even internally, it's possible to become a player - the core definition of play, 'to take reality lightly', has been practised for millenia by Buddhist and Eastern mystics, after all. But my vision is of a world that builds structures and incentives to support people's play - with shorter working weeks, fully accessible educational, cultural and scientific resources, proper provision for parental leave and care. We take the creative risks of play - a new career, a new project, a new personal relationship, a new cause - when we feel that, at a very deep level, we are secure and cared-for and have meaning - that's the original condition of play for almost all complex mammals, after all. I believe we can construct a 'play ethical' society that gives that sense of security, to unlease the dynamic energies of play. So yes, play requires care, and care is the point at which play truly ends, not work - for our play these days should be what we regard as 'work', or at least the productive and creative part of work. Care is when the fragility and injury that players open themselves out to is fully responded to and supported - our finitude as human beings, rather than our infinitude (the endless possibilities of play). I'd go so far as to say that the right to play depends on the responsibility to care.
3) Since your book’s been published, we’ve seen a huge rise in popularity of multiplayer online gaming and online virtual worlds, such as Second Life. How can a player avoid temptation of using the play only as a frivolous way to escape from more mundane problems? How to balance play and chores?
Have you ever played Second Life or World of Warcraft? Sometimes it seems like a long list of chores! On the surface it seems strange that someone would come back from a hard day's mental or physical labour, to hook themselves into a system where they're building villages and running shops online. But I think this shows that people are looking for play - that sense of openness and possiblity and self-determination in life - not as part of a fantasy realm, but actually right across their lives. Most people would probably want to 'play' with the shape and dimension of their jobs, in order that those jobs could truly satisfy them. How many organisations do you know of that would welcome that in any way? In any case, if you look at the 'serious games' movement - look at http://www.avantgame.com/, or http://www.watercoolergames.com - it's as easy to play a game that toys with the real world of politics and issues.
4) It’s relatively easy for creative people and knowledge workers to embrace playfulness and incorporate it into their work. But what about people who have to deal with dull and repetitive jobs?
This is a tough question, and where I get really revolutionary about the play ethic. So much of what we could regard as 'caring' activities involves dull repetition - making food, assisting the weak, constructing a routine for children or colleagues. And as I said above, I don't think the play ethic can exist without a care ethic. But how much of the 'service/retail industry', as currently arranged, is really about care? Or is it more about a new 'servant' class running around to repair the chaotic domestic and social lives of affluent, knowledge workaholics? The politics of the play ethic is that the pool of people able to be 'players' in a society expands way beyond the current majorities and elites - and does so through massively increased access to educational, scientific and cultural facilities, a lowering ceiling on the working week, and a 'wellbeing' system that provides support for self-development, not just a safety net from falling out of the labour market. In short, a proper balance between play and care means that our careers are more satisfying and fulfilling (but take up less time in our lives), and our lives are more self-managed (ie we cook, parent and clean for ourselves more, and consume services less). In the coming ecological crunch, we might well need to move to this new arrangement quite quickly - ie, to take satisfaction from play and care, rather than production and consumption.
