[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-591709-105":59,"doc-detail-591709-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","play-studies-a-brief-history","Play Studies - A Brief History","","Play Studies - A Brief History examines how the discipline of play studies emerged through the work of major thinkers and scholars. Thomas S. Henricks surveys foundational theories of play, tracing debates about play’s nature, meaning, and cultural role. The text highlights key concepts such as communitas, play scholarship traditions, and the “pathway of experience,” comparing how different authors frame play’s diversity, rules, uncertainty, learning, imagination, and modern leisure.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":15,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/literature/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/play-studies-a-brief-history/591709/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/play-studies-a-brief-history/591709.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Dipper","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-23","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":14},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"为什么作者认为“研究游戏/玩耍”很难理解？","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"因为玩耍以多种形式表现，意义会因人、因时而变；有的玩耍依靠规则与记录维持稳定，有的则短暂、奇幻且脆弱。","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"文章如何看待玩耍与文化之间的关系？",{"text":117,"@type":113},"作者认为玩耍能在更广阔的文化层面体现对“经验路径”的承诺，并与仪式、工作等路径相似。",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"哪些关键人物与作品被用来概述现代玩耍理论？",{"text":121,"@type":113},"文章重点提到 Huizinga 的 Homo Ludens、Caillois 的 Man, Play, and Games，以及 Sutton-Smith 的 The Ambiguity of Play 等，并讨论他们对玩耍类型与意义的不同看法。","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},591709,1792742270,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":14,"category_name":15,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":14,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":26},1374404997633,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","Play Studies  \nA Brief History •  \nThomas S. Henricks  \nIn an article adapted from his latest work, Play: A Basic Pathway to the Self, published by The Strong in 2020, the author offers a wide-ranging review of play studies—and the thinkers, philosophers, and scholars who led to the creation of the discipline. He also reviews and seeks to explain for both specialists and more general readers the great diversity of play itself, which he ultimately considers a “pathway of experience” that resembles other such pathways as ritual, work, and what he calls communitas. Key words: communitas, play, play scholarship, play studies, play theory, ritual, work  \nStudents of play realize quickly that their chosen subject is exceedingly difficult to comprehend and investigate. As behavior, play expresses itself in many forms; it includes objects of innumerable variety. No setting for human activity escapes its reach. Play events are prolix in their meanings. Indeed, the same event may mean different things to different people—or to the same individuals at different moments of their involvement. Some types of play find stability through rules, officials, organizations, and records; other types are evanescent, fanciful, and fragile. On occasion, play moves in clear directions, but often it reverses course or becomes entirely unpredictable in its path and implications. Some players train long and hard and conduct their endeavors with a determined spirit. Others muse, laugh, and dally—and forget their commitment the moment it has passed. Play is simple enough that any child can do it—indeed, must do it. Similarly impelled, adults also play in ways that range from the most basic kinds of dabbling and jostling to the heights of literary, artistic, and scientific creation.  \nPlay studies is a collective enterprise that has depended—and continues to depend—on the contributions of many people who have thought deeply about this subject and who have advocated for it in different ways. Here I identify seven  \n117  \nAmerican Journal of Play, volume 12, number 2 © The Strong [Contact Thomas S. Henricks at henricks@elon.edu](Contact Thomas S. Henricks at henricks@elon.edu)  \nimportant traditions of play scholarship. In discussing each of these traditions, I emphasize specific works that stand as guideposts for those wishing to understand play in such terms. The themes I select are: remembering the classics; child development; play’s nature; imagination—private and public; learning, recreating, healing; the playing of tradition; and modernity, leisure, and games.  \nI begin by signaling some important twentieth-century works that present a general theory of play, one that acknowledges not only the great variety of playful behaviors but also their commonality. At the forefront of any such listing stands Johan Huizinga’s classic, Homo Ludens. Written during the 1930sas totalitarianism swept Europe, the book ponders the nature of play and its role in the generation of human culture. In a dark decade, then, many of Huizinga’s chapters trace the historical and cross-cultural significance of the social contest, or agon, in different fields of culture such as politics, poetry, myth, and war. And the final section rues the decline of the play spirit in the modern, industrialized world. The book’s greatest legacy is its insistence that readers see the playful commitment in its broadest cultural terms. Play is not simply the joyous rambling of children; it is central to all forms of creativity and communicates the highest ideals of communities.  \nHuizinga’s book was criticized—and emended—by Roger Caillois. First published in 1958, Caillois’s Man, Play, and Games sets forth its own definition of play and reenvisions the split between modern and premodern versions of that activity. In opposition to Huizinga, Caillois (2001a) conceptualized four different types of play: agon (contest), alea (chance), mimicry (role play or simulation), and ilinx (vertigo). The latter two","cbCaiphShLDf1uDI","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiphShLDf1uDI","pdf",260853,39,"English","# Play Studies - A Brief History\n## Overview of play studies as a discipline\n## Key challenges in understanding play\n## Traditions of play scholarship\n## Twentieth-century general theories of play\n## Huizinga and the cultural role of play\n## Caillois: types of play and ludus vs paidia","[{\"question\":\"为什么作者认为“研究游戏/玩耍”很难理解？\",\"answer\":\"因为玩耍以多种形式表现，意义会因人、因时而变；有的玩耍依靠规则与记录维持稳定，有的则短暂、奇幻且脆弱。\"},{\"question\":\"文章如何看待玩耍与文化之间的关系？\",\"answer\":\"作者认为玩耍能在更广阔的文化层面体现对“经验路径”的承诺，并与仪式、工作等路径相似。\"},{\"question\":\"哪些关键人物与作品被用来概述现代玩耍理论？\",\"answer\":\"文章重点提到 Huizinga 的 Homo Ludens、Caillois 的 Man, Play, and Games，以及 Sutton-Smith 的 The Ambiguity of Play 等，并讨论他们对玩耍类型与意义的不同看法。\"}]","Play Studies - A Brief History | PDF",1792073038]