The Elements of Play - Toward a Philosophy and a Definition of Play

Oct 15, 2026

Scott G. Eberle addresses the longstanding difficulty of defining play by proposing a definition grounded in play’s dynamic character. The work identifies six basic elements—anticipation, surprise, pleasure, understanding, strength, and poise—and examines emotional, physical, and intellectual dimensions. It argues for a play ethos shaped by evolution and developmental benefit, while asserting that play at its most elemental always promises fun, excluding activities lacking these elements.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLiterature

FormatPDF

Pages20

Reading Time31 min

AccessFree to download

The Problem of Defining Play

Six Elements of Play

Criteria and Standards for Play

Examples and Limits of the Criteria

The Elements of Play Toward a Philosophy anda Deﬁnition of Play s Scott G. Eberle Scholars conventionally ﬁnd play difﬁcult to deﬁne because the concept is complex and ambiguous. The author proffers a deﬁnition of play that takes into consideration its dynamic character, posits six basic elements of play (anticipation, surprise, pleasure, understanding, strength, and poise), and explores some of their emotional, physical, and intellectual dimensions. He argues for a play ethos that recognizes play is evolution based and developmentally beneﬁcial. He insists, however, that, at its most elemental, play always promises fun. In this context, any activity that lacks these six elements, he contends, will not fully qualify as play. Keywords: deﬁnition of play; elements of play; universe of play Play is a roomy subject , broad in human experience, rich and various over time and place, and accommodating pursuits as diverse as peekaboo and party banter, sandlot baseball and contract bridge, scuba diving and Scrabble. Play welcomes opposites, too. Play can be free—ungoverned by anything more complicated than choosing which stick is best to improvise a light saber—or ﬁxed and codiﬁed, as in those instances when soccer players submit to scrupulous “laws.” Play can take active or passive form and can be vicarious or engaging—and so we recognize play in both the spectator and the actor. In fact, at play we may even become both spectator and actor, straining with an air-guitar ata concert for example or sympathetically enacting the motions ofthe quarterback’s long bomb during the big game.1 We have no trouble recognizing play in the premeditated prank or the instant wisecrack. And then play can be solitary or social—as enjoyed by a woodcarver at his bench or a quilter during her bee. We can ﬁnd play in the spaces in between, too, as children engage imaginary friends without quite being alone or as gamers play together on the Internet without meeting face-to-face. We can take in play at a glance in these instances, following its course and knowing it conﬁdently when we see it, but observation does not automatically 214 Journal of Play, volume 6, number 2 © The Strong Contact Scott Eberle at [seberle@museumofplay.org](seberle@museumofplay.org) bring us closer to reﬁning the concept. In fact, the opposite seems to be the case: the settings change, the play interval varies, the intensity rises and falls, and then intent and other human circumstances shift and morph. The more we look and listen, the more we feel our conﬁdence slip away. But ifour eyes fail us, perhaps the mind can compensate. Can we imagine a satisfying deﬁnition, one true of play wherever and whenever there are players and however they play? Can we specify ideal, unvarying, dependable attributes of play? Many thinkers have proposed so, noting salient aspects of play. Gordon Burghardt, for example, in his searching The Genesis of Animal Play (2005), identiﬁed twelve characteristics of play. And Thomas Henricks, in his thoughtful Play Reconsidered (2006), noted that scholars have tended to isolate volition, pretending, ordering, seclusion, and secrecy.2 Boil the lists down, and ﬁve basic qualities emerge: play is apparently purposeless, voluntary, outside the ordinary, fun, and focused by rules. Identifying the attributes of play like this can prove very useful if we understand them as criteria, and once having so identiﬁed these criteria, apply them as standards. Thus, ﬁrst, play exists for its own sake. Players do not aggressively seek out some other purpose to play. In fact, trying to twist play to an end vitiates it, making it seem less and less like play. Second, players play of their own accord. Third, play is special and set apart. Sometimes players reserve a particular setting for playing, and no matter how different from each other, the ﬁeld, the stadium, the woods, the rink, the court, and the ring all serve as playgrounds. Fourth, play is fun, a c

FAQs

Why is play difficult to define, according to the text?

Play is complex and ambiguous, and observation alone does not guarantee refinement of the concept. Changing settings and shifting human circumstances make confidence slip as play is examined further.

What are the six basic elements of play proposed by the author?

The author proposes anticipation, surprise, pleasure, understanding, strength, and poise as foundational elements of play.

What criteria are used to judge whether an activity counts as play?

Five qualities emerge: play is apparently purposeless, voluntary, outside the ordinary, fun, and focused by rules. Activities that fail one or more criteria violate the standards of play.

Oct 15, 2026

Upload by supergirl