Sometimes we come closest to the gods in moments of play. When play is genuine, time is suspended and we are lifted into an eternal Now, where passing away seems to pass away. The value of play, like fine art, is intrinsic. We might say of play what Heidegger says of a rose, that it is “without why.” Always purposeless, the beauty of play is that it is not utilitarian; it is valuable because it is impractical. As Nietzsche teaches in his “Gay Science,” play, which is beyond good and evil, reveals the wisdom of unworldly folly and the folly of worldly wisdom.
Precisely because we are at bottom grave and serious human beings – really, more weights than human beings – nothing does us as much good as a fool’s cap: we need it in relation to ourselves – we need all exuberant, floating, dancing, mocking, childish, and blissful art lest we loose the freedom above things that our ideal demands of us…. We should be able to stand above morality – and not only to stand with the anxious stiffness of a man who is afraid of slipping and falling at any moment, but also to float above it and play. How then could we possibly dispense with art – and with the fool?
In our sports-obsessed world, true play is rare. Ever eager to make a profit, crafty investors turn play into serious business. Customer recruitment begins when players are very young: children barely old enough to walk punch away on cell phones that carry video games; Nike runs sports camps to hook seventh-graders on expensive shoes; kids not yet in their teens compete for countless hours in massive multi-user-online games where they learn skills better suited for the trading floor than the playing field. When nothing escapes the logic of the market, losses become incalculable. These distortions of play have serious consequences – a society that has forgotten how to play has lost its way.
I have long thought the historic phases of economic development can be charted by the games people play: agrarian society loved baseball; industrial society, football; network society, basketball. It is not only the grass that makes baseball a field of dreams but also the leisurely pace of the game – nobody ever seems to be in a hurry. The long warm-ups, breaks between innings, walks to the mound, jumping in and out of the batter’s box seem designed to slow everything down. Baseball is not governed by the clock and often seems to go on forever.
And then there is the spitting – what is it about baseball and spitting? In no other sports do athletes spit like baseball players. They spit on the ground, in their hands, on their bats, in their gloves and, when they can get away with it, on the ball. It seems to be a ritual vestige of an earlier era when times were rough and edges had not yet been smoothed.
Football is all about strategy and timing and, as such, it is the ideal game for the military-industrial complex. Metaphors of war dominate discussions of football and violence is intrinsic to the game. More important, football is rigidly hierarchical – the command structure is strictly top-down. Plays are first diagrammed by coaches acting like generals and then executed by troops equipped with the latest high-tech body armor heading into battle against a hostile enemy. Carefully staged rituals make the point obvious: fighter jets flying low in tight formation over stadiums, military paratroopers landing on fields, color guards carrying the flag and high-soaring eagles released while fans belt out the national anthem. Warriors one and all.
Basketball is improvisational and spontaneously emergent rather than programmed and deliberately plotted. Like jazz, basketball is played best when it flows freely. Though some plays are planned, most are riffs that cannot be anticipated. The structure of the game is lateral rather than vertical, distributed and not hierarchical. Basketball does not conform to the logic of the industrial grid(iron) but follows the alternative logic of information networks. Though the court is circumscribed, the game is decentralized and the action is free-wheeling. If football players following commands recall movements on a chessboard, basketball players bumping into each other as they constantly adapt to the continuously changing flows surrounding them resemble packets darting across worldwide webs.
I enjoy no sport more than North Carolina basketball – not Red Sox-Yankees baseball, not Williams-Amherst football, but Carolina-Duke basketball. Several years ago I taught at UNC and had the good fortune to get to know Dean Smith, who is one of the most impressive people I have met.
What drew us together was my love of Tarheel basketball and his love of Kierkegaard. Dean reads theology and philosophy – Karl Barth, Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr and above all others, Søren Kierkegaard – as seriously as I follow the team he coached for so many years. I guess it makes sense for the greatest coach in the history of college basketball to like the philosopher whose name is synonymous with “the leap of faith.”
During my stay in Chapel Hill, we met regularly and our conversations drifted back and forth between basketball and religion. It quickly became apparent that basketball is a religion for both of us but our faiths are different. Our contrasting faiths, we discovered, reflect alternative understandings of Kierkegaard.
Throughout his demanding writings, Kierkegaard identifies three stages through which each person must pass as he or she progresses from immaturity to maturity: aesthetic, ethical and religious. At the aesthetic stage, life is controlled by desire and people are immersed in sensuous immediacy. In a manner reminiscent of the Garden of Eden, the life of pleasure lies in the present. Without awareness of, or concern about the future, there is no worry about tomorrow – the now is all that matters. The most obvious example of this stage on life’s way is the infant, who is a creature of immediate desire and has not yet developed a broader sense of self and self-restraint. Aesthetic life, however, is not limited to infancy but can also be found among people who seem to be mature individuals. Adults remain infantile when their lives are governed by nothing more than the pleasure principle.
At the ethical stage, people realize that life is about more than the pursuit of pleasure. They become aware of their freedom and their responsibility for their own lives. No longer completely controlled by desire, they learn to follow moral principles handed down by parents, priests and professors. For the ethical person, life is a serious business and the stakes are very high. It is our responsibility to make the world a better place by following the principles and rules established by a moral god.
While never leaving behind the pleasures of the senses or rejecting the dictates of morality, religion is, according to Kierkegaard, beyond good and evil. In a manner reminiscent of aesthetic existence, religion involves an experience of eternity within time. At the decisive moment, the eternal God enters history to redeem the believing individual by releasing him from the travails of time. This instant is the eternal Now in which time is suspended, death is overcome and, thus, passing away passes away.
As Dean Smith and I discussed these tangled issues at considerable length, we gradually began to realize that for him, religion and basketball are ethical, while for me they are aesthetic. Though a fierce competitor who never wants to lose, Dean believes that the value of the game is not intrinsic but lies in the lessons it holds for life after basketball. Always practicing what he preaches, Dean has devoted his life to defending the civil rights of others and promoting social justice for all. The game is never simply about itself but is always about life’s larger lessons.
Dean was the first to integrate the Atlantic Coast Conference and, when local restaurants would not serve his players, he accompanied them and refused to leave until they did. Several years ago my daughter Kirsten broke family ranks and went to Duke Law School (there’s that will again!). When she was writing an article about the death penalty, she called Dean and he gave her an interview about his opposition to it. What greater coup than publishing an interview with Dean Smith in the Duke newspaper!
While the final score is important, for Dean Smith, the game is really won off the court.
I do not, of course, deny the pedagogical value of sports. Throughout my youth I played baseball (first base), football (offensive guard and defensive tackle – times were different then!) and basketball (center). I have no doubt that I never would have written so many books without the discipline I learned on the field and court. But what makes a game a game is not simply the way it prepares us for the future but the way it locates us in the present. We play games for those rare moments when time stands still: the perfect contact of ball and bat, perfect angle for a clean tackle, perfect touch on a last-minute jump shot. In that instant, players do not resolutely move toward the future by following the rules of the game; to the contrary, floating freely as if released from gravity, they live as fully as possible in the present. In this moment, I no longer play but something else, something other plays through me.
I know only three other experiences that come close to this moment: losing oneself in sexual bliss, immersing oneself in a work of art or standing outside of oneself in a moment of religious ecstasy. I suspect an experience like this is what Saint Paul had in mind when he wrote, “I live; yet not I, but Christ lives in me” (Galatians 2:20). As the very sense of self melts away, time and eternity actually become one. Though this instant inevitably passes, the memory of it creates the hope it might return once again.
I always recall the lessons I learned from my conversations with Dean whenever I watch Carolina play. My friend John and I get together to watch the game: my house, when the Tarheels are at home, his house, when the Blue Devils are at home. Former President of Williams College and past Chairman of the Duke Board of Trustees, at 83 John has lost none of his zest either for the game or for life, if, indeed, the two can be distinguished. When the Heels have a bad night, I know my first email in the morning will be from John rubbing it in. When Duke falters, I always return the favor.
As professors of religion, we both know that any living religion needs its rituals so we have devised our own. We don our fools’ caps and costumes – he wears his Duke hat and sweatshirt and I wear my Carolina hat and t-shirt. While eating popcorn and drinking beer, we leave behind the gravity of the moral problems facing our world and abandon ourselves to the “exuberant, floating, dancing, mocking, childless and blissful art” of basketball.
What I know, but John has yet to learn, is that the color of heaven is not Duke blue, but it’s Carolina blue.
I enjoyed your entry greatly, but wonder if it would be productive if more scholars thought through D.W. Winnicott or Benjamin rather than Heidegger and Kierkegaard when it comes to play. Play in those former arguments is mimetic — not transcendent — and a lot of hard work to boot. Of course, by reading play as a matter of mimesis and a matter of becoming another, which has an ethics of its own, it may work better to read the stories and actions of Hindu gods (or even Greek ones) through play and leave to the salvation religions another framework altogether.
As for organized basketball, that has become less a revelation and more a matter of big business even at the college level.
I hate to quibble with a scholar who correctly recognizes that Chapel Hill is the ‘southern side of heaven’, but … regarding Professor Taylor’s opening comments about multi-user online games, I wonder whether there really is a distinction between the skills suited to the trading floor and the playing field–at least where these skills concern the eternal Now. I’ll resist the temptation to make anti-Wall Street jibes about impractical and purposeless activity; instead, I’d like to ask how we might in principle distinguish between play and gambling—if we take up the usual canard that trading stocks, speculation, etc., are simply respectable forms of gambling. Reliance on chance, putting one’s assets at risk partly for the thrill, learning how to deal with Fate—why isn’t all of this playful in a deep sense?
Go Heels!
@Tom Asher:
‘As for organized basketball, that has become less a revelation and more a matter of big business even at the college level’.
Undeniable that the gobs of money involved in college basketball have a corrupting influence—but isn’t this a precipitously wholesale dismissal? Are all college programs corrupted in the same way or to the same extent? Does the fact that pro football is ‘more a matter of big business’ and pro baseball is ‘more a matter of big business’ and college basketball is ‘more a matter of big business’ elide the differences between them in terms of style, hierarchy, ruling metaphors, etc.? And does any of this really exclude the possibility of revelation or pedagogy?
Mark, all those years studying with you and I never knew that you too bleed Carolina blue! Thank you for this wonderful piece—I am very grateful for your having taught me how to keep the play alive in my writing and academic work.
By the way, does George Carlin know you’re ripping him off on the baseball/football riff?
This is very entertaining, but — despite having taught at Williams — he has apparently never seen a hockey game. Hockey players spit at least as much as baseball players, and frequently blow their noses by holding one nostril closed and blowing forcefully out the other nostril. You don’t see that everyday, and you don’t see it on any baseball fields that I’m aware of. Many hockey players apparently have never heard of Norbert Elias.
Taylor also fails to appreciate the truly religious experience of skating on a newly frozen pond, with the temperature below freezing and nothing but that sheet of pristine ice, a stick, a puck, and someone to play with — ideally, with a dozen people to play with, and at least some sort of net. It’s much better than anything that could take place on television, although the NHL recently televised an outdoor game played in these conditions (actually, with snow added) before something like 70,000 people in Buffalo’s football stadium. The snow slowed everything down and made playing more complicated, as it is wont to do, but everyone seems to have loved the experience — players and fans alike. Now that’s play for you….
This reminds me of Homo Ludens, which I must confess I have not read in years (could it now be counted in decades?). But what I recall liking about Huizinga was his argument about play being central to the constitution of culture and not simply a reflection of it (Geertz’s play as society in miniature). That and the reminder that play is not somehow outside of life but the stuff of it. It surprises me that we don’t know a lot more about “play” or in particular that sociologists don’t study play more seriously. The greatest collective phenomena in America besides religion is likely to be sport…
Thanks for the fascinating discussion on play. Corporate power strongly mediates the experience of watching games, but I’m not sure how it undercuts the quality of play for the athlete in the heat of the competition or for the mindful observer of the action. Play still seems to be a transcendent quality. I also enjoyed the comparisons on baseball, football, and basketball. My thesis is that the three sports express three elements of American culture, present in all time periods rather than each being a reflection of a particular era. Baseball seems to illustrate the eschatological aspect of the national worldview, a vision forward rather than back. Therefore, it generated incredible attentiveness for people in the midst of the Bronx, Brooklyn, North Side of Chicago, Southern California, and in rural parts of the country. Basketball is improvisational but with more scripted plays than baseball; the latter is the most spontaneous, a game of prophetical imagination for abundant freedom comes when individuals will act from self-direction.
Just a quick topical note that the NYTimes magazine has a story on “taking play seriously“.