Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=yale. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French
Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
JacquesEhrmann
'French translationfrom the Dutch by CUcile Seresia, Gallimard, 1951. The original text
was published in 1938. The page numbers given in parenthesisafter the quotations refer
to the French edition.
2As Caillois has published the same texts (with modificationswhich appear minor in as
much as they do not affecthis thesis) twice or even three times (once in the form of
articles in various reviews,again in his book Les jeux et les hommes, a third time in the
volume of the Encyclopedie of La Pleiade devoted to "Sports and Games"), we will refer
to his book Les jeux et les hommes, Gallimard, 1958, assuming that it representsthe most
complete expression of his thought on this problem. The page numbers given in paren-
thesesfollowingthe quotations referto the pocket edition.
For his critiqueof Huizinga's definitionof play, cf. p. 33.
31
Yale FrenchStudies
32
JacquesEhrmann
33
Yale FrenchStudies
Huizinga:
From the standpointof form,we can defineplay in shortas
a free activity,experiencedas "make-believe"and situated
outsideof everydaylife,neverthelesscapable of totallyab-
sorbingthe player; an activityentirelylacking in material
interestand in utility.It transpiresin an explicitlycircum-
scribedtime and space, is carriedout in an orderlyfashion
accordingto givenrules,and givesrise to grouprelationships
whichoftensurroundthemselveswithmysteryor emphasize
throughdisguisestheirdifference fromthe ordinaryworld.
(pp. 34-35)
34
JacquesEhrmann
Caillois:
. . . the precedinganalysis allows us to defineplay as an
activitywhichis essentially:
1. free: the playercannotbe obliged to participatewithout
robbingplay of its natureas alluringand joyfuldiversion;
2. separate: it is circumscribedwithinlimitsof space and
timewhichare preciseand fixedin advance;
3. uncertain:itscoursecannotbe determined norits outcome
reached in advance, a certainlatitudefor innovationbeing
leftnecessarilyto the initiativeof the player;
4. unproductive:it createsneithergoods nor wealthnor new
elementsof any kind; and, exceptforredistribution of prop-
erty withinthe circle of players,it results in a situation
identicalto thatwithwhichit began;
5. controlled: it is subject to conventionswhich suspend
ordinarylaws and introducetemporarilya new body of
legislationendowedwithexclusiveauthority;
6. fictive;it is accompanied by a specificawareness of a
second realityor of straightforward unrealityin relationto
everydaylife.
Benveniste:
Beforeoffering his definition,Benvenisteis carefulto show the
"deep-seated relationship"existingbetween play and the sacred:
"The sacred presupposesa reality,thatof the divine;throughritual,
the faithfulare introducedto a separate world,more real than the
trueworld [sic]. Play, on the contrary,can be unhesitatingly distin-
guishedfromthe real. The sacred may be seen as pertainingto the
surreal,play to the extra-real.In addition,the sacred operationhas a
practicalend. . . Play in itselfhas no practicalgoal; its essence lies in
its verygratuitousness." (p. 164) Here now is his definition:
35
Yale FrenchStudies
36
JacquesEhrmann
37
Yale FrenchStudies
38
JacquesEhrmann
39
Yale FrenchStudies
40
JacquesEhrmann
seriousness play
usefulness gratuitousness
fecundity
f .)sterility
whichare opposed by leisure
work leisure
science literature
reality unreality
41
Yale French Studies
42
JacquesEhrmann
41n spite of the superficial divergences, Caillois's position does not deviate significantly
from Huizinga's. He reproaches the latter for excluding bets and games of chance by his
definitionof play. He is indeed correct in pointing out that play is defined as an action
lacking in all material interest,the "implication is that play has no inherenteconomic in-
terest." We have seen that this is by no means the case. However, after the incursion into
the economic domain which allows him to retrievea sphere of play which Huizinga had
cast aside, he withdrawsat once by affirming that play "remains rigorouslyunproductive."
"It is in fact characteristicof play to create no wealth, no works. It differentiatesitself
therebyfrom work and from art." Once again Caillois is a victim of his own categories.
Within a series of activities running from basketball to dancing to ballet to comedy, it
would be interestingto know, indeed, where play stops and where work and art begin.
We come back to the same opposition of utilityand gratuitousness."Play is an occasion
for pure expenditure,"he writes (p. 36). And again: play is "always a contingentand
gratuitousactivity."(p. 115)
43
Yale French Studies
5Cf. Sigmund Freud, Le mot d'esprit et ses rapports avec l'inconscient,French translation
by Marie Bonaparte and M. Natman, Gallimard, 1953. See especially the second part (pp.
135-181) in which Freud presents an economy of witticismsprecisely in terms of psychic
expenditureand savings.
44
JacquesEhrmann
6Was this not already Rousseau's point of view on science and art, civilization's (cor-
ruptive) luxuries?
45
Yale French Studies
And severallinesfarther:
46
JacquesEhrmann
7The explanations given by Caillois are confusingand hardly convincing (cf. pp. 65, 105,
149-150). Huizinga too denounces the corruptionof play by professionalism,by money:
It now appears that the ever-increasingsystematizationand discipline of play are
going to suppress in the long run somethingof the pure play-element.The behavior of
the professional is no longer appropriate to play, no longer carefree and uncon-
cerned . . . (p. 315)
Then he observes the same "sliding toward seriousness" in certain card games: "With its
manuals and its systems,its important instructors and professional trainers, bridge has
become a deadly serious affair." This sentence is followed directlyby another which does
not appear very appropriate in the developmentof the argumentbut which by its almost
involuntarycharacter emphasizes to what extentseriousness and gratuitousnessare opposed
in the mind of the author: "A recent newspaper item estimated the income of the Cul-
bertson couple at more than $200,000." (p. 317) The indignationis transparent.Must we
conclude that to play "well" one must be neithertoo rich nor too poor? Being too rich
preventsenjoymentof play - for play is no longer a complementto the needs of ordinary
life. Being too poor, too hungry,as Caillois puts it, creates a thresholdbehind which these
needs totally occupy the mind, and since not even the essential ones can be satisfied,there
is surely no room for a complement.However, adds Huizinga:
The attemptto uncover the play-elementof the confused present leads us constantly
to contradictoryconclusions . . . In opposition to the tendency of play to turn
into seriousness,certainphenomenaseem to manifestthe opposite tendency.(p. 318)
He is referringthere to a certain "gratuitous" form of rivalry among major enterprises,
rivalry which takes on an agonistic character; wherever industrial production takes on a
sportingcharacter,the desire for settingrecords has free rein: "the liner with the greatest
tonnage,the blue ribbon for the most rapid maritimecrossing . . ." (pp. 319-320)
47
Yale French Studies
80rtega y Gasset develops the same point of view, but in a more categorical, almost
caricatural fashion in his essay on "The sportingorigin of the state." He writes:
Utility creates nothing,inventsnothing; it simply approves and registerswhat has been
createdindependently.
Life's original, primary activity is always spontaneous, playful, superfluous in its
intent.It is freeexpansion of a pre-existing
energy.
What is most necessaryis the superfluous.
Needless to say, we can hardly subscribe to this view, with its rather naive idealism.
48
JacquesEhrmann
49
Yale French Studies
9Cf. the entire chapter on "Play and poetry" and in particular pp. 210, 212, 217-220.
Huizinga expresses too his nostalgia for an art unaware of itself, of its "civilizing" role,
in these terms:
Since the eighteenthcentury,art, manifestinga new awareness of itself as a factor in
civilization,has to all appearances lost more than it has gained in play quality. Does
this signifya raising of its level? It would not be impossible to show that it was
formerlya blessing for art to be in large measure unconscious of the meanings it
transmitsand the beauty it creates. In the pronounced feeling for its own greatness,
somethingof its worldlyingenuousnessis lost. (p. 323)
50
JacquesEhrmann
51
Yale French Studies
This text (like the one frompage 121 whichwe quoted in the
firstpart of thisessay) obligesus to formulatecertainquestionsnot
resolvedby Caillois: do the play-instinctsexist priorto play itself?
The authorforwhomthecompetitive instinctis a law of natureseems
to be sayingthis (we may recall thathe considersplay to be a puri-
fiedreproduction of "ordinaryreality").However,if thisis the case,
one wondershow theseinstinctscould have createdthe conditionsin
whichplay is possible,since theyare describedas "disastrous,"de-
structive,manifesting "primordialbrutality."On the otherhand, if
games existpriorto the play-instincts - in otherwords,if law pre-
"Law, nature! It seems that we have not taken a single step forward since Rousseau. See
also, in regard to the relation of law and natural savagery, Huizinga, po. 168-170. While
leaving open the possibilityof returningto this problem, let it sufficeto point it out here
and to say that it could only be resolvedby a new approach to play.
52
JacquesEhrmann
53
Yale French Studies
54
JacquesEhrmann
55
Yale French Studies
III. Conclusions
They need not be very elaborate. They will have become ap-
parentduringthe readingof our text.Let it sufficeto recapitulate:
1. Play is not playedagainsta backgroundof a fixed,stable,reality
whichwould serveas its standard.All realityis caughtup in the play
of theconceptswhichdesignateit. Realityis thusnot capable of being
objectified,nor subjectified.
However,it is neverneutral.Nor can it
be neutralized.Thus,
2. the role of the literarycritic (since that is our department)is
not to tryto measurethe gap whichwould separatea so-called "real-
ity"fromthe domain of the so-called "imaginary",in orderto reach
a verdict:one textis realistic,anotherunrealistic.Such an approach
makes no sense. Each textcontainsin itselfits own reality,whichin
essence (or by nature!) is put into play by the wordswhichmake it
up.
3. At the methodologicallevel, play and reality,being inseparable,
can onlybe apprehendedgloballyand in the same movement.
4. In otherwords,the distinguishing characteristic
of realityis that
it is played. Play, reality,cultureare synonymousand interchange-
able. Nature does not exist prior to culture.The role of the critic
is specificallyto understandand to explain by language (literary
language in particular) how this nature-culture manifestsitselfin
different historicaland culturalcontexts.
5. Justas cultureis, in the last analysis,communication, so is play
. . . and game. Thus, any theoryof communication(or of informa-
tion) impliesa theoryof play ... and a game theory.And vice versa.
Here arises the necessityof a dialogue with our colleagues in the
sciences.
6. The player,like the speaker - thatis, each of us - is at once
the subject and the object of the play. The pronounsI, you, he
are the differentmodes of the play structure. The subjectivity-object-
ivitydualismis abolishedbecause it is inoperative.
7. Play is articulation, openingand closingof and throughlanguage.
56
JacquesEhrmann
57