September 23, 2016 - 15:42
I define “play” as an activity young children perform that brings them happiness and pleasure. “Play” is usually associated with children as adolescents and adults do not use this word to apply to themselves. If people other than children use this word it is often looked down upon. Furthermore, that person is deemed as strange. Despite that, my idea of play is contradicted by Edensor, Evans, Holloway, Millington and Binnie through their article “Interrogating teleological understandings of play in spaces of material alterity and lower surveillance”. Their idea that play can take place in ruin sites contradicts my idea of play because many times young children are not wandering into ruin sites but young adults and adults are the ones doing so. Often times people’s imaginations are more vivid in ruins since they have never been shown what the intended purpose of scraps left in a ruin is. Therefore, the idea that the scraps can be anything liberates and frees people’s imagination. Furthermore, the “material affordance”(3) of the scraps and other leftover parts in these ruins allow for a wider imagination and therefore exploration fostered by curiosity. Moreover, these ruins “…remain spaces in which unauthorized and improvisational activities may occur…”(1). Because it is an abandoned space no one feels the need to conform to society’s rules and etiquette. People are free to do what they want in this neglected space. This atmosphere and vibe allow for “…practices that rely on the absence of direct regulation…”(2) such as no supervision. The “lack of ordering and surveillance thus allows wide scope for activities prohibited or frowned upon in other urban public spaces…”(2). No rules and no onlookers ultimately give people an excuse to drop their guards.
The atmosphere of play in the ruins is analogous with Amanda’s post about childhood play. She writes that her nearby playground was remodeled so that the structures were safer for young children to play with. Despite that, this change was unsuccessful as Amanda states that she and her friends “deemed the new equipment dull and promptly began climbing on top of the structures, ignoring the intended function of each piece to use it in the least safe way possible.” Like people who play in ruins, Amanda plays with the equipment in a way that the equipment was not intended to serve. She most likely was not under strict supervision or else she would not have been allowed to climb on the equipment the way she did. Similarly, people in ruins do not expect supervision and therefore feel free to do whatever they wish. To get to the ruins “someone will already have found a way past the defensive barriers, and security personnel are rarely employed to protect spaces…”(2). In this situation to get atop the playground equipment, Amanda must have found a way to get past a barrier to climb up since this playground was deemed safer than the last so there must have been barriers protecting the children from partaking in dangerous activities such as climbing atop of structures. The new structures “foster[ed] a multitude of opportunities for playful interaction with space and matter”(3). Amanda discovered new ways to have fun with the limited, dull equipment she was provided with. For example, Amanda says that, “Plastic roofs of little play huts became slides and jumping platforms.” Amanda sought out new ways to make the boring, safe playground into a riskier one that brought excitement. Likewise, people in the ruins find ways to transform the abandoned structures into exciting pieces.
The article also establishes that there are a few types of playing. The style that applies to Amanda's example of childhood play is the adventurous, expressive play which “offer[s] potential for a range of playful somatic engagements with space and materiality”(6). More specifically it “test[s] embodied capacities to manage risk, move in unusual ways, crouch, bend and leap, to make a path around, through, under or over things…”(6). When Amanda decided to use the playground to her advantage she was taking a risk since climbing and jumping from the structures is more dangerous than simply complying with the intended use of the equipment. Going against the social norm of playing with the equipment as it was intended “requir[es] balance, agility, and bravery beyond that encountered in managed play spaces or activities such as climbing and abseiling”(6). Amanda took part in risky behavior that needed gracefulness especially if she was climbing atop of rooftops and jumping off of them. A child definitely has to be bold enough to make the leap to do something that comes with the risk of getting hurt. This type of play is definitely a type of play in which imaginations and curiosity run wild or in other words “allow[s] scope for imaginative improvisation and exploration”(11). Moreover, this type of play is essential for a child as it allows for “the develop[ment of] useful skills of recognizing and negotiating danger, and knowing one’s bodily capabilities”(6). By taking the risk of climbing on top of the playground structures, Amanda could have fallen and have been seriously hurt. Despite that, these experiences would have taught her to be more careful and to avoid jumping carelessly from high structures. This would have prepared her for real life situations. She would have learned the limits of what she could do and what she could not so that she could avoid these situations in the future or find ways to do it better. Ultimately, “…children can learn valuable life- long lessons, particularly about risks and how to deal with them, from playing in the natural environment”(9). Furthermore, play also has the “potential to not only reinforce existing power relations but also transform them”(11). In this case Amanda is not conforming to the safety rules of the park set by the officials of her county along with her mother who partook in renovating the park to make it safer. Because she plays in her own risky way she is suggesting her way is better than the way these people intended children to play. Therefore, although she probably did not mean to she is demonstrating that her way of play is superior to the original, safe way. There is a switch of power relations because now Amanda is influencing the other children to play her riskier way. The fact that the members of this project failed to contain the children and create a safe space gives them a sense of inferiority.
Amanda’s experience of childhood play parallels the experience of adventurous play in the ruins. Both play occurs in an unintended way with many materials to play with in an unsupervised space. Moreover, adventurous play is a necessity in that it prepares one for adulthood. If Amanda had never participated in adventurous play she may have struggled to learn to take risks, learn about her weaknesses and therefore how she can find ways to go about these weaknesses. Ultimately, expressive play that takes place in wild spaces such as the ruins or spaces that parallel them is the first activity that actually prepares a child for the real world.