Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:04:02.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Play in(g) international theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 June 2019

Aggie Hirst
Aggie Hirst*
Affiliation:
Department of War Studies, King's College London
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While the study of games and gaming has increased in International Relations in recent years, a corresponding exploration of play has yet to be developed in the field. While play features in several key areas – including game theory, videogames and popular culture, and pedagogical role-plays and simulations – little work has been done to analyse its presence in, and potentials for, the discipline. The aim of this article is to introduce the study of play to IR. It does this by demonstrating that play is political, and that it is at work across the global arena. Drawing on the deconstructive tradition associated with Jacques Derrida, its core contribution is a theorisation of play. The central argument developed is that play is (auto)deconstructive. By this I mean (1) that play precipitates an unravelling of any attempt at its conceptualisation, and (2) that this illustrates the value of a deconstructive approach to international theory. This claim is substantiated through an analysis of four key binary oppositions derived from Johan Huizinga's Homo Ludens. Having shown how play powerfully deconstructs its own conceptual foundations, I argue that a playful approach offers a robust challenge to entrenched assumptions in international theory.

Keywords

PlayGamesInternational TheoryDeconstructionJacques Derrida
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 45 , Special Issue 5: Special Issue on Populism , December 2019 , pp. 891 - 914
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Other scholars have discussed binary relations of this kind, which utilise and in some cases amend Huizinga's principles, including Brown, Stuart L. and Vaughan, Christopher C., Play: How It Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul (New York: Avery, 2010)Google Scholar; Caillois, Roger and Barash, Meyer, Man, Play, and Games (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Nagel, Mechthild, Masking the Abject: A Genealogy of Play (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2002)Google Scholar; Ryall, Emily, Russell, Wendy, and Maclean, Malcolm (eds), The Philosophy of Play (London: Routledge, 2014)Google Scholar.

2 Caillois and Barash, Man, Play, and Games; Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 3; Nagel, Masking the Abject, p. 2, fn. 6; Hans, James S., The Play of the World (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1981), pp. 1–6Google Scholar; Spariosu, Mihai, Dionysus Reborn: Play and the Aesthetic Dimension in Modern Philosophical and Scientific Discourse (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), p. 2Google Scholar, fn. 2.

3 Huizinga, Johan, Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture (Kettering, OH: Angelico Press, 2016)Google Scholar.

4 HBerents, elen and Keogh, Brendan, ‘Virtuous, virtual, but not visceral: (Dis)embodied viewing in military-themed videogames’, Critical Studies on Security, 6:3 (2018), pp. 366–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brown, Michelle Lee, ‘(Re)coding the comic holotrope of survivance’, Transmotion, 3:1 (2017), p. 23Google Scholar; Ciută, Felix, ‘Call of Duty: Playing video games with IR’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 44:2 (2016), pp. 197–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hayden, Craig, ‘The procedural rhetorics of Mass Effect: Video games as argumentation in International Relations’, International Studies Perspectives (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, Nick, ‘Videogames, persuasion and the war on terror: Escaping or embedding the military entertainment complex?’, Political Studies, 60:3 (2012), pp. 504–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, Nick, ‘Have you won the war on terror? Military videogames and the state of American exceptionalism’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 43:2 (2015), pp. 450–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Robinson, Nick, ‘Militarism and opposition in the living room: the case of military videogames’, Critical Studies on Security, 4:3 (2016), pp. 255–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Salter, Mark B., ‘The geographical imaginations of video games: Diplomacy, civilization, America's Army and Grand Theft Auto IV’, Geopolitics, 16:2 (2011), pp. 359–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Asal, Victor, ‘Playing games with International Relations’, International Studies Perspectives, 6:3 (2005), pp. 359–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Asal, Victor and Kratoville, Jayson, ‘Constructing International Relations simulations: Examining the pedagogy of IR simulations through a constructivist learning theory lens’, Journal of Political Science Education, 9:2 (2013), pp. 132–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Horn, Laura, Rubin, Olivier, and Schouenborg, Laust, ‘Undead pedagogy: How a zombie simulation can contribute to teaching International Relations’, International Studies Perspectives (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zamaróczy, Nicolas de, ‘Are we what we play? Global politics in historical strategy computer games’, International Studies Perspectives (2016)Google Scholar; Lee, Michael and Shirkey, Zachary C., ‘Going beyond the existing consensus: the use of games in International Relations education’, Political Science & Politics, 50:2 (2017), pp. 571–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Orsini, Amandine, ‘Short games series as new pedagogical tools: the International Relations games show’, European Political Science, 17:3 (2018), pp. 494–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Derian, James Der, ‘The Desert of the Real and the simulacrum of war’, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 84:5 (2008), pp. 931–48Google Scholar; Derian, James Der, ‘War as game’, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 10:1 (2003), pp. 37–48Google Scholar; Derian, James Der, ‘The simulation syndrome: From war games to game wars’, Social Text, 24 (1990), pp. 187–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Bousquet, Antoine, ‘Wargames’, in Mackay, Robin (ed.), Simulation, Exercise, Operations (Falmouth, UK: Urbanomic, 2015)Google Scholar.

8 Lammes, Sybille and Smale, Stephanie de, ‘Hybridity, reflexivity and mapping: a collaborative ethnography of postcolonial gameplay’, Open Library of Humanities, 4:1 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mukherjee, Souvik, Videogames and Post-Colonialism: Empire Plays Back (Cham: Palgrave Macmillian, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Dyer-Witheford, Nick and Peuter, Greig De, Games of Empire: Global Capitalism and Video Games (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009)Google Scholar.

10 Galloway, Alexander R., Gaming: Essays on Algorithmic Culture (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Wark, McKenzie, Gamer Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Mälksoo, Maria, ‘The challenge of liminality for International Relations theory’, Review of International Studies, 38:2 (2012), p. 492CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 In Guillaume, Xavier (ed.), ‘The international as an everyday practice’, International Political Sociology, 5:4 (2011), p. 453CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Dillon, Michael, ‘Intelligence incarnate: Martial corporeality in the digital age’, Body & Society, 9:4 (2003), p. 25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

14 Vaughan-Williams, Nick, ‘International Relations and the “problem of history”’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 34:1 (2005), pp. 115–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Hoffman, Mark, ‘Restructuring, reconstruction, reinscription, rearticulation: Four voices in critical international theory’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 20:2 (1991), pp. 169–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, p. 208.

17 Woodyer, Tara, ‘Ludic geographies: Not merely child's play’, Geography Compass, 6:6 (2012), pp. 313–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Massumi, Brian, What Animals Teach Us about Politics (Durham: Duke University Press, 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Oriard, Michael, Sporting with the Gods: The Rhetoric of Play and Game in American Culture, Cambridge Studies in American Literature and Culture (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 356Google Scholar.

20 Hans, The Play of the World, p. 3.

21 Hackett, in Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 125.

22 Hans, The Play of the World, p. xi.

23 In Bogue, Ronald and Spariosu, Mihai (eds), The Play of the Self, SUNY Series: the Margins of Literature (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), p. 99Google Scholar.

24 Hans, The Play of the World, p. xi.

25 Nagel, Masking the Abject.

26 These include the Association for the Study of Play (TASP), the International Council for Children's Play (ICCP), the Association for the Child's Right to Play, the Association for Play Therapy, and the National Institute on Play.

27 Ehrmann, Jacques, Game, Play, Literature (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971), p. 5Google Scholar.

28 Hans, The Play of the World, p. xiii.

29 Woodyer, ‘Ludic geographies’, p. 322.

30 Fink, in Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 19.

31 Ibid., p. 20.

32 Massumi, What Animals Teach Us about Politics, p. 8.

33 Cited by Feezell in Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 14.

34 Hans, The Play of the World, p. vi.

35 Brown and Vaughan, Play, p. 73.

36 Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, p. 207.

37 Nagel, Masking the Abject, p. 1.

38 Salter in Guillaume (ed.), ‘The international as an everyday practice’, p. 455.

39 Bueger, Christian and Gadinger, Frank, ‘The play of international practice’, International Studies Quarterly, 59:3 (2015), p. 449CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Ibid., p. 453.

41 Sicart, Miguel, Play Matters (Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press, 2014), p. 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

42 Sutton-Smith, Brian, The Ambiguity of Play (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), p. 11Google Scholar.

43 Brown and Vaughan, Play, p. 17.

44 Sicart, Play Matters, p. 27.

45 Barbrook, Richard, Class Wargames: Ludic Subversion against Spectacular Capitalism (Wivenhoe; New York and Port Watson: Minor Compositions, 2014)Google Scholar; Plant, Sadie, ‘The situationist international: a case of spectacular neglect’, Radical Philosophy, 55:summer (1990), pp. 3–10Google Scholar; Worth, Owen and Kuhling, Carmen, ‘Counter-hegemony, anti-globalisation and culture in International Political Economy’, Capital and Class, 84 (2004), pp. 31–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 For an exploration of contemporary Situationist-inspired anti-militarist activity, see Rossdale, Chris, Resisting Militarism: Direct Action and the Politics of Subversion (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2019)Google Scholar.

47 Barbrook, Class Wargames, p. 56.

48 Ibid., p. 63.

49 Plant, ‘The situationist international’, p. 9.

50 Rossdale, Resisting Militarism, pp. 125–6.

51 Adorno, Theodor W. and Jephcott, E. F. N., Minima moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life (London and New York: Verso, 2005), p. 228Google Scholar.

52 Sicart, Play Matters, p. 5.

53 Lev́inas, Emmanuel, Difficult Freedom: Essays on Judaism (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012), p. 206Google Scholar.

54 Sicart, Play Matters, p. 5.

55 Cudworth, Erika and Hobden, Stephen, Posthuman International Relations: Complexity, Ecologism and Global Politics (London: Zed Books, 2013)Google Scholar.

56 Massumi, What Animals Teach Us About Politics.

57 In Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 23.

58 Hans, The Play of the World, p. 187.

59 Barbrook, Class Wargames, p. 56.

60 Wark, Gamer Theory, p. 11.

61 Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, p. 75.

62 Hans, The Play of the World, p. 186.

63 Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 9.

64 Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 25.

65 Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, p. 1.

66 Spariosu, Dionysus Reborn, p. 2.

67 Feezell, in Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 11.

68 Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, p. 2.

69 Hans, The Play of the World, pp. 8, 28.

70 Spariosu, Dionysus Reborn, p. 3.

71 Massumi, What Animals Teach Us about Politics, pp. 9–10.

72 Hackett, in Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 122.

73 Huizinga, Homo Ludens, p. 44.

74 Nagel, Masking the Abject, p. 1.

75 Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, p. 198.

76 Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 2.

77 Spariosu, Dionysus Reborn, p. 2.

78 Nagel, Masking the Abject, p. 1.

79 Spariosu, Dionysus Reborn, p. 2.

80 Fink, in Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 27.

81 Hans, The Play of the World, pp. 22–3.

82 Spariosu, Dionysus Reborn, p. 3.

83 Hopsicker and Carlson, in Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 176.

84 Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play.

85 Woodyer, ‘Ludic geographies’, p. 314.

86 Oriard, Sporting with the Gods, p. 358.

87 Massumi, What Animals Teach Us about Politics, p. 9.

88 Suits, cited in Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 46.

89 Arfi, Badredine, Re-Thinking International Relations Theory via Deconstruction (New York: Routledge, 2012), pp. 191–207Google Scholar; Dillon, Michael, Deconstructing International Politics (Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxonand New York: Routledge, 2013)Google Scholar; Edkins, Jenny and Zehfuss, Maja, ‘Generalising the international’, Review of International Studies, 31:3 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fagan, Madeleine (ed.), Derrida: Negotiating the Legacy (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007)Google Scholar; Hirst, Aggie, ‘Derrida and political resistance: the radical potential of deconstruction’, Globalizations, 12:1 (2015), pp. 6–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nordin, Astrid H. M., ‘Futures beyond “the West”? Autoimmunity in China's harmonious world’, Review of International Studies, 42:1 (2016), pp. 156–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; O'Callaghan, Ronan, ‘Secular theology and noble sacrifice: the ethics of Michael Walzer's just war theory’, Review of International Studies, 39:2 (2013), pp. 361–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pinkerton, Patrick, ‘Resisting memory: the politics of memorialisation in post-conflict Northern Ireland’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 14:1 (2012), pp. 131–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thomassen, Lasse, ‘Deconstruction after Derrida’, Ethics & Global Politics, 2:4 (2009), pp. 383–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Zehfuss, Maja, Wounds of Memory: The Politics of War in Germany (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)Google Scholar; Zehfuss, Maja, War and the Politics of Ethics (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2018)Google Scholar.

90 Ayyash, Mark Muhannad, ‘Hamas and the Israeli state: a “violent dialogue”’, European Journal of International Relations, 16:1 (2010), pp. 103–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frazer, Elizabeth and Hutchings, Kimberly, ‘Remnants and revenants: Politics and violence in the work of Agamben and Derrida’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13:2 (2011), pp. 127–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lundborg, Tom, ‘The ethics of neorealism: Waltz and the time of international life’, European Journal of International Relations (2018), p. 135406611876099Google Scholar; Mercier, Thomas Clément, ‘Resisting legitimacy: Weber, Derrida, and the fallibility of sovereign power’, Global Discourse, 6:3 (2016), pp. 374–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Milliken, Jennifer, ‘The study of discourse in International Relations: a critique of research and methods’, European Journal of International Relations, 5:2 (1999), pp. 225–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Dunne, Timothy, Kurki, Milja, and Smith, Steve (eds), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar; Edkins, Jenny and Vaughan-Williams, Nick (eds), Critical Theorists and International Relations (New York, NY: Routledge, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edkins, Jenny and Zehfuss, Maja (eds), Global Politics: A New Introduction (Londonand New York: Routledge, 2014)Google Scholar; Smith, Steve, Booth, Ken, and Zalewski, Marysia (eds), International Theory: Positivism and Beyond (Cambridgeand New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weber, Cynthia, International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction (London and New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014)Google Scholar.

92 Halliday, Fred, Rethinking International Relations (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan, 1995)Google Scholar; Holsti, K. J., ‘Mirror, mirror on the wall, which are the fairest theories of all?’, International Studies Quarterly, 33:3 (1989), p. 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keohane, Robert O., International Institutions and State Power: Essays in International Relations Theory (Boulder: Westview Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Mearsheimer, John J., ‘The false promise of international institutions’, International Security, 19:3 (1994), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sajed, Alina, ‘The post always rings twice? The Algerian War, poststructuralism and the postcolonial in IR theory’, Review of International Studies, 38:1 (2012), pp. 141–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Sajed's critique is especially important as a corrective to unwitting reproductions of colonial logics in some uses of poststructural thought.

93 Derrida, Jacques and Bass, Alan, Positions (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998), pp. 38–9Google Scholar.

94 Ibid., emphases in original.

95 Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, pp. 147, 166.

96 Spariosu, Dionysus Reborn, p. 154.

97 Caputo, John D., ‘Three transgressions: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida’, Research in Phenomenology, 15 (1985), p. 74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

98 Derrida, cited in Elam, Diane, Feminism and Deconstruction: Ms. en abyme (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), p. 90Google Scholar.

99 Huizinga, Homo Ludens, p. 8.

100 Caillois and Barash, Man, Play, and Games, p. 6.

101 Huizinga, Homo Ludens, p. 13.

102 In Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 24.

103 Huizinga, Homo Ludens, p. 19.

104 Massumi, What Animals Teach Us about Politics, pp. 21–3.

105 Brown and Vaughan, Play, p. 17.

106 In Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 25.

107 In Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 21.

108 Brown and Vaughan, Play.

109 Huizinga, Homo Ludens, p. 14.

110 Fink, in Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 24.

111 Woodyer, ‘Ludic geographies’, p. 319.

112 Salter, in Guillaume (ed.), ‘The international as an everyday practice’, p. 455.

113 Woodyer, ‘Ludic geographies’, p. 318; Massumi, What Animals Teach Us about Politics, p. 29.

114 In Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 23.

115 Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 24.

116 Woodyer, ‘Ludic geographies’.

117 Massumi, What Animals Teach Us about Politics, p. 6.

118 Fink, in Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 28.

119 Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, p. 1.

120 Bateman, discussed in Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, pp. 139, 195.

121 Massumi, What Animals Teach Us about Politics, p. 4.

122 Ibid., pp. 5–7.

123 Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 33, emphasis in original.

124 Ibid., pp. 33, 56.

125 Ibid., p. 34.

126 Huizinga, Homo Ludens, p. 5.

127 In Bogue and Spariosu (eds), The Play of the Self, p. 145.

128 Cited in Nagel, Masking the Abject, p. 1.

129 In Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 19.

130 In Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play (eds), p. 109.

131 In ibid., pp. 114–16.

132 In ibid., p. 117.

133 Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, pp. 211–13.

134 Huizinga, Homo Ludens, p. 5.

135 Ibid., p. 8.

136 In Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 20.

137 Ibid., p. 45.

138 Huizinga, Homo Ludens, p. 46.

139 In Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p 35.

140 Citing Bateson, Massumi, What Animals Teach Us about Politics, pp. 24–5.

141 In Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 64.

142 In Bogue and Spariosu (eds), The Play of the Self, p. 97.

143 Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, pp. 207–08.

144 Ibid., p. 208.

145 In Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 6.

146 In ibid., p. 19.

147 Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play, p. 204.

148 Nagel, in Duncan, Margaret Carlisle, Chick, Garry Edward, and Aycock, D. Alan (eds), Diversions and Divergences in Fields of Play, Play & Culture Studies 1 (Greenwich, CT: Ablex, 1998), p. 27Google Scholar.

149 Huizinga, Homo Ludens, p. 45.

150 Ibid., p. 8.

151 Caillois and Barash, Man, Play, and Games, p. 5.

152 In Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 123.

153 Nagel, Masking the Abject, p. 2.

154 Ackerman, Diane, Deep Play, Vol. 1 (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2000), p. 18Google Scholar.

155 In Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 123.

156 Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 39.

157 Oriard, Sporting with the Gods, p. 356.

158 In Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 19.

159 Hans, The Play of the World, p. 25, emphases in original.

160 In Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 17.

161 In ibid., pp. 17, 45.

162 In ibid., p. 45.

163 Hans, The Play of the World, p. 26.

164 Wark, Gamer Theory.

165 Massumi, What Animals Teach Us about Politics, p. 161.

166 In Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 122.

167 Webster, in ibid., pp. 186–7, emphasis in original.

168 In ibid., p. 100.

169 In ibid., p. 124.

170 In Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 21.

171 In Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 100.

172 Massumi, What Animals Teach Us about Politics, p. 42.

173 Ibid., p. 12.

174 Cited by Fink, in Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 25.

175 Huizinga, Homo Ludens, pp. 3–4.

176 In Bogue and Spariosu (eds), The Play of the Self, p. 96.

177 Fink, in Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 19.

178 Nagel, Masking the Abject, p. 4.

179 Huizinga, Homo Ludens, p. 10.

180 Cited in Ehrmann, Game, Play, Literature, p. 54.

181 Ibid., p. 55.

182 In Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 155.

183 Hans, The Play of the World, pp. 3–4.

184 Nagel, Masking the Abject, p. 1.

185 Ibid.

186 Ibid., p. 3.

187 Spariosu, Dionysus Reborn, p. 162.

188 Ibid.

189 Ibid., pp. 154–5.

190 Hans, The Play of the World, p. 15.

191 In Ryall, Russell, and Maclean (eds), The Philosophy of Play, p. 121.