In regard to Homo Ludens, and Peter Gray’s theory of play, I think both authors are correct in their understanding of how play comes to be. At it’s very core, we as humans- as animals, have a biological need and natural drive to play. Though in modern times play is generally associated with races, or competitive video games, I still look back to my own childhood and remember all the times I played with my sister and cousin, make-believing that we were soldiers or survivalists, playing in the woods past our backyard and in the local state parks building tee-pees, forts, and crafting weapons for us to ‘hunt’ and ‘fight’. Rarely were we ever each others’ antagonist, rather, we most often were on the same team, working together for our mutual benefit. Looking at children now, perhaps due to influence from older generations (mine included), they seem to be getting into competitive play at earlier ages, however, children very young, still play the same way I did as a child- eager to include others, and to work together. Certain types of play fundamentally remain the same no matter which country you are in, but this is where culture starts to influence play. In America, we may make-believe Native Americans vs settlers as children, whereas Chinese might make-believe they are soldiers fighting Mongolians in the 1200’s or something. The finer details of our play is based on our knowledge of the world at that point in our life, and whereas world history may be beyond our knowledge, local history would have already taken form, influencing the stories we believe in and make up.
Though I understand the problem with gendered toys, I also understand why it is so divisive between ‘for boys’ and ‘for girls’ at this point in time. As said in the article, 50 years ago, during and post WWII, women were working in factories and in manual labor, jobs considered to be masculine in nature, which in turn shifted American culture away from the traditional gender roles. This change in mentality influenced toy design and creation to be more gender-neutral as a result. The change back into gendered toys can be compared to phones in my opinion. The two main trends for phones seem to be large phones with big screens, so that it may be compared to a compact laptop in a way, and the ultra-light, ultra-thin phones that you can barely feel in your pocket. This proven furthermore by the creation of tablets as a whole to meet market demands for high-tech mobile devices that remained large, while smart-phones were getting smaller. As a marketeer, you want to define demographics and use that as a basis to design a product tailored to fit them most definitively. No one wants a middle ground product that only fits their tastes 50%, just as no one would particularly want a phone that’s halfway between the sizes of a tablet and phone, unable to meet the needs of either market. This applies to toys as well, if you are to make a gender-neutral toy, it better be a damn good idea that all can enjoy, but such ideas are harder to come by and harder to sell. Playing off of gender stereotypes, its easier to produce toys that are for girls, or for boys. This however, pushes the cycle forward, creating a culture that progressively becomes more gendered, creating a larger market for gendered toys.
My favorite toys growing up were all related to construction, being, for the most part, Legos, puzzles, and DIY model kits. I always took great satisfaction in creating things out of scratch, even now under the IMA program I continue to do so. I wouldn’t say that the toys I played with were particularly gendered, but I can see how on a cultural basis, these toys were considered ‘for boys.’ My sister, for example, also took interest in the things I would play with, but every year for Christmas, I would get these toys that we both enjoyed whereas she would receive the standard barbie doll which she would just toss in the corner of her room to collect dust.
Another reason why I think I enjoyed toys that relate to ‘production’ so heavily is because of my Chinese identity. Growing up in a very suburban, white community, I was somewhat ousted as “The Chinese kid”. I didn’t mind it because I was proud of my Chinese heritage, and no one was particularly disrespectful about it either. At the time, China was still mostly known as the industrial powerhouse of the world, kicking in at high productivity at all hours of the day, mass producing every known object in the world. In order to make-believe that I was part of that, I moved from project to project at top-speed, proven by the dozens and dozens of models and Lego builds sitting in my basement and in my room today. Even in middle school, when a sort of ‘arms-race’ broke out, I was always in the middle, making all the origami ninja stars, pencil crossbows, and homemade darts for the whole class. I simply had satisfaction in seeing everyone invested into the things I created.
For our group presentation we decided on dolls because they sit on an intersection of being gendered and gender-neutral while also having an extensive history that reaches beyond the point in which it could be finely documented yet still remains prevalent in culture and media today.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1HK4hMUJcEIsekJhyFxLLlrgIfhB6AeSDBnbVy0TGSQI/edit#slide=id.g7034daa7f9_5_87
When we decided to base our research on dolls, I immediately thought of Matryoshka dolls, because of how they’ve evolved to serve more as a cultural symbol rather than an actual toy for children, even though they haven’t been around nearly as long as I originally thought (being invented around the 1890’s). Though they were originally designed for girls, mostly decorated with flowers and depicted as women of a family, the design transcended this theme, eventually spurring on the creation of government hierarchies, and other more gender neutral themes such as robots, animals. In modern times, it serves as a basis for artists to create work as an art-piece rather than just a girl’s toy.
In response to the question “Do you think children who play with blocks in video games get the same experience as kids who play with physical blocks?” from Group 01’s presentation on blocks:
I think that the experience derived from physical toys and digital toys/games is entirely different, though similar in concept at it’s core. Games like Minecraft can offer extensive gameplay, and is regularly updated to include even more content, compared to a simple block set, it certainly is worth it’s weight in gold. The value of the block set, however, comes from the physical aspect of it. There is no simulated gravity (if there even is any in digital block games), and no save-point. The controls are not simplified down to 5 buttons and a mouse, and nothing responds unexpectedly. I think physical blocks are important for a child because of these elements; it slowly helps them understand balance, logic, and the concept of space. There is true consequences to things like turning on a big fan pointed at it, or jumping up and down nearby, and having a weak foundation. This understanding comes from the fact that the child gets to have a full 3-dimensional view and understanding of the blocks, rather than having it limited to a 2D platform (the computer monitor).
Digital games, also offer great benefits, being cost effective, and allowing for grand creations that simply could not be created in a physical environment. You would certainly get similar moments, such as the pride a child feels when showing off their creation to their parents and friends, but the fundamental experience you gain is vastly different.