The article discusses play and tries to define it. After reading the article I decided to look at the formal definition of the word play and was astonished. Dictionary.com lists ninety-four, yes ninety-four definitions. Huizinga splits the article into two categories, play that is childlike and play that forms from ritual. The author speaks of the longevity of play, and the fact that it is older than even culture. Furthermore, the reasoning behind play is deeply analyzed, pushing it farther than psychological and physiological meaning. He flirts with a fine line, stating you can deny a number of things including God, justice, and seriousness but not play. Moving on, Huizinga is fascinated with idea of seriousness versus play. How they interact, how they help mold or deconstruct the other, and how each is categorized? Childlike play often comes to mind when speaking of play.He refers to play as imagination or feeling otherworldly. It is not a always a welcome spot for realistic ideas in play. This thought has been embedded into children’s mind for quite some time now and it is still evident in today’s culture.
In society, as we grow older and mature appropriately, we not only change our lifestyle but humans also adapt their “play.”Playing often becomes more of a mentally intensive game, such as rituals.Rituals are definitely entangled in culture as well, but once again the author speaks about the importance and existence of play.
Huizinga’s article could be found offensive to religious people, or other types of supporters.He downgrades a variety of religions and compares them to game playing.In my opinion, if you analyze a subject enough you can typically relate one subject to another. I think this article compares the two items at hand incorrectly.