2. Philosophy - Stefano Franchi

“ TO DIE GAME”
context of a “serious” activity we either presuppose a fundamental difference between se-
rious and non serious business in order to stress the well regulated character of both, or we
leverage on the non-serious, e.g. the playful, character of game in order to exhort people to
take the serious businesses of life in a ligher manner. In either case, we rely heavily on the
playful component of “game.”
In short, “games” can be seen as representing the most serious, well-regulated com-
ponent of Spiel, but they are dependent on the opposite, “playful” component to be regard-
ed as such. No matter how well an activity is constrained by rules, only if it is separated by
“normal,” “adult,” “productive” life, it is considered a game in the proper sense. Notice that
this does not mean that an activity must belong or be derived from the realm of childhood
to be considered a game. In fact, in many societies, “games” traditionally belonged to the
realm of the sacred life, the most notable example being the Olympic games. In that case
as well, though, what is most important is the separation between “normal” everyday life,
between the life of labor and pain, and the separated, sacred space in which games can take
place.
A similar point can be made for “play,” the component of Spiel that stands for the free,
spontaneous, and self-renewing activity. One of the most disconcerting aspects of play,
even in its most common, everyday uses, is the co-existence of the serious aspect in a con-
cept that derives most of its meaning from the opposition to seriousness itself. 2 Children’s
play is supposedly the mark of such a free activity. But any observation of children “at
work” will quickly reveal that they are as inflexible about the rules of their playing as the
most consummated chess master. In fact, children can even spend a substantial part of their
playing time negotiating over the rules presiding their games and any player not observing
them is very often severely reprimanded. The only difference with chess is that children’s
2. The serious side of play has been emphasized over and over by scholars of play. Most often, however,
this emphasis has been translated into a reduction of the playful to the serious that goes hand in hand
with the reduction of the whole universe of play—from child’s play to chess—to the serious games
played in social occasions. Huizinga, for example, stresses the serious element so much that he decides
(but actually he is forced) to limit his investigation in Homo ludens to the “higher forms of play”. As
a consequence, everything having to do with “fun”, enjoyment, “merriment” etc., is left out of play and
judged inessential. But the problem, as I will show, is precisely the analysis of their interrelationship.
Flattening one element upon the other does not take us very far.
83