September 25, 2015 - 15:44
Edensor, Evans, Holloway, Millington and Binnie insist on “A lack of overt regulation is a key attribute to ruins, important in relation to play since this provides a space outside the strictures of ‘healthy and safety’, systematic surveillance and material maintenance. (66)”
Commonly, it is considered that ‘play’ is what children do in safe places with “systematic surveillance” and “material maintenance”. That is, it is usually considered that children should be protected in order to play freely. In contrast, however in their argument, play is not always what should be held in safe places. They say it could be in ruins where people who are able to protect children are absent and materials are abandoned. Those places are usually regarded as hazardous places where are at risk. Generary speaking, it is dangerous for children to play in such places as there are not observed by anyone because children’s play might be deprived of many possible risks there. For instance, they might be injured by abandoned material, involved in crime or incidents. There are also possibilities for them to dabble in alcohol or drugs. Thus it could be said that dangerous condition deprives play from children.
However, according to butterfly’s post “Play in my two Neighborhoods”, the possibility of play in at risk places were demonstrated. At first, she tells her childhood play in place where was not safe. “De tín marín do pingüe, cucara macara, títere fue, cuantas patas tiene un gato? Uno, dos, tres, cuatro!” My left foot was out the game, now I only had my right foot left to win. “De tín marín do pingüe, cucara macara, títere fue, cuantas patas tiene un gato? Uno, dos, tr-“ *BANG* … I scared but I wasn’t surprised. … I watched as all my neighbors ran into grandma’s house and locked the doors as to protect us from the bullets. It was going to be okay, … And we would continue with the game.” In her case, there were adults who were protecting them but at any rate it was far from a safe place. Despite the dangerous situation, she and her friends kept playing.
Next she compares her childhood play in a safe place. “There was little danger in my quiet dead end street. … We would ride our bikes, our paint our street with chalk, or build snow igloos. “ She also enjoyed playing in a safe place as a matter of course.
Thinking with common idea of play as said above, she should have enjoyed playing more comfortably in the latter situation. Nevertheless, she concludes “But I never felt a difference between my playtime … despite the difference in safety. Kids just want to play, and they’ll find a way to do so.” She found no difference between her childhood play in the contrary situation at all. Her reaction exemplifies that it is not always just safe places where children can play.
Works Cited
Butterfly. “Play in my two Neighberhoods.” Serendip Studio. Serendip, 21 Sep. 2015. Web. 25 Sep. 2015.
Edensor, Tim, Bethan Evans, Julian Holloway, Steve Millington and Jon Binnie. “Playing in Industrial Ruins: Interrogating Teleological Understandings of Play in Spaces of Material Alterity and Low Surveillance.” Urban Wildscapes. Ed. Anna Jorgensen and Richard Keenan. New York: Routledge, 2011. 65-79. Print.