Play Events as Dialogic Transformation of RelationshipsAna Marjanovic-Shane, Chestnut Hill College, USA, anamshane@gmail.com

“You are Nobody!”

It’s Jay’s third birthday party. He is the only child in the room full of adults: his parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles. He runs around from one to another, getting smiles, nods and sweets. At one moment of silence, his great uncle solemnly asks: “Jay, who do you love the best?” Not stopping to run around the table for even a moment, Jay looks at his mother and father, then at me and loudly declares: “Nobody!” Then, he runs straight to me, his aunt, pulls my head down to his mouth and whispers in my ear so that no one else can hear: “YOU’re nobody!” (Field note, May 1, 1978)

Play as “postupok”Play as “postupok” – an act-deed, a purposeful act addressing another person, and simultaneously seeks an answer, scrutiny and evaluation by this other.

Every thought of mine, along with its content, is an act or deed that I perform-my own individually answerable act or deed [postupok]” (Bakhtin, 1993, p.3)

Play postupok is an invite to an Other to enter (or to continue with) a dialogic process of co-creation, acting and testing of ideas, desires, positions, opinions, beliefs, attitudes, possibilities, intentions, purposes, meanings, etc. about topics of mutual significance and concern.

Play postupok creates “bifurcation points in the continuum of the ‘here and now’” (Marjanovic-Shane & Beljanski-Ristić, 2008)

Ontologically significant meanings

Play as a creation of ontologically significant meanings for the players, that matter in the relationships that are being created, at the time they are created;

Meanings that are live materials for building and understanding self and others;

Critical human practice rather than an instrument of development of some other human characteristics.

Ontology of play

The start of play is a TRANSITIONAL MOMENT

Play multiplies the “planes of reality”: “In play a child creates an imaginary situation” (Vygotsky, 1978, 93-94); “Play frame” (Bateson, 1972);

In my analysis I use Bakhtin’s notion of a Chronotope – a unity of Space, Time and Axiology (values, rules, customs, expectations) – to describe these “planes of reality”.

Play Chronotopes“Chronotope” – a systematic unity of time, space and axiology (value system)- “the place where the knots of narrative are tied and untied”… “Time, as it were, thickens, takes on flesh, becomes artistically visible, likewise, space becomes charged and responsive to the movements of time, plot and history.” (Bakhtin,1991, 84).

It is a unique time-space-value of an EVENT, rather than universal, uniform and measurable dimensions.

It is a QUALITY of the experience – a PEREZHIVANIE, that constitutes the time-space-value: it’s a DRAMATIC quality of time-space-value that gives a chronotope its meaning.

Play Chronotopes

Starting to play means entering into a threefold (and in some cases four-fold) relationship with others (and self) in three distinct chronotopes.

Play is established by the event participants as their vision of being engaged in multiple chronotopes.1. Reality Chronotope (RC)

2. Imaginary Chronotope (IC)

3. Community Players Chronotope (CoPC)

Boundary moment of transition

Jay is put on the spot to declare his feelings;

He does not want to hurt anyone;

To avoid answering he declares: “NOBODY!”

He realizes that even that might hurt someone’s feelings;

POSTUPOK: He creates a language game and a community of players (CoPC) with me as he whispers to my ear:

“You are Nobody!” (IC)

RC

Reality Chronotope (RC)

The realm of each participant’s ongoing experiences of the past and the present life and the immediate, current life situation.

At any point of time the life’s ongoing immediacy can become central to the reality chronotope.

RC is established by the act of creating play—and relates to the other two play chronotopes along the boundaries that are established between them. Thus, as a chronotope of PLAY, RC is NOT merely a “given reality” which pre-exists the initiation of play.

Relational –boundary – dynamics of chronotopes

We can see the RC “thickening”—getting its space-time axiology “flesh”—around the conflict between his wish not to hurt anyone’s feelings and the reality that no matter what he says he will hurt someone’s feelings

But what “sparks” the RC – is the Postupok of PLAY i.e. Creating an IC in which an utterance “You are NOBODY” makes a perfect sense.

The “alteric” (transformational) interpretations are true not merely within the IC, but by creating this boundary, the players, in fact establish a particular and a uniquely focused RC as well. Only from the boundary position of the Imaginary Chronotope, the Reality Chronotope becomes visible. "Apart from play, RC does not exist as a chronotope. 'Reality' becomes a chronotope—with its felt and experienced values, rules and expectations—in the moment of contrast, at the boundary of play, when play encompasses reality.

Imaginary Chronotope (IC)

The IC seems to be a new arena for the players to test their relationships and to contest what they know and how they act in the world.

In an IC the players position new characters and personas in particular constellations of relationships, and through them they try out new ideas.

IC emerges both from the previous tensions and agreements between players as actors and from their surprising acts-deeds to each other as the characters in the IC.

For instance

When Jay whispers in my ear “You are Nobody!” – it is the result of our true relationship as an aunt and a nephew.

But here he creates a character for me “Nobody” – who is the object of his love;

The IC starts to emerge as a strange, even paradoxical landscape – almost like a Carrollian one, in which strange creatures (Nobodys) exist and relate to each other beyond reality.

Edmistone, 2010, pp. 203-204I was lying in bed this morning with Michael and Zoë. Michael was pushing myarm with his foot as I cradled Zoë.MICHAEL - I’m Smaug [the dragon from The Hobbit] and you are the people on the hill. OK, Daddy? Your hand is the people going down the hill [meaning my arm].BRIAN - OK .[I proceed to walk my hand down my arm. Michael kicks my arm away and giggles. Then he roars and transforms himself into Smaug, snarling and snapping at imaginary people which he devours.]MICHAEL - Now you’re a dwarf and Zoë is a dwarf and I am Bilbo Baggins [allcharacters from The Hobbit]. OK, Daddy?BRIAN - OK.BILBO/MICHAEL - I have the ring (spoken in a lowered voice).DWARF/BRIAN - What can the ring do?BILBO/MICHAEL - It can make us invisible.DWARF/BRIAN - What shall we do about Smaug? He’s killed all those people!BILBO/MICHAEL - We’ll all creep up on him.[Zoë starts to cry]

Edmistone, 2010, pp. 203-204, (continued)MICHAEL - Smaug put his foot on her that’s why she’s crying.[I turn to comfort her. She stops crying and begins to look around.]MICHAEL - Now Smaug has put his foot on me [lying down as if in agony].BRIAN - He’s put his foot on me too. Help! Help! What shall we do? [also as if inAgony]*****DRAGON OF GOODNESS/MICHAEL - I am the Dragon of Goodness and I have come to help you.DWARF/BRIAN - Help! We’re being crushed by Smaug.MICHAEL - [as if grabbing and throwing a great weight] I threw Smaug over the mountain.DWARF/BRIAN - He’s flying away. Oh, thank you for saving us. How did you know to come?DRAGON OF GOODNESS/MICHAEL - Because your spirit called me.DRAGON OF GOODNESS/MICHAEL - [kneeling down] Climb on my back [flapping his imaginary wings] We will fly to India. I escaped from the island where all the demons are [i.e. Lanka from The Ramayana which we’ve been reading in a picture book version].BRIAN - Thank you Dragon of Goodness for saving us.[We stop and leave the room for breakfast.]

IC and RC – relationship and boundary

Vygotsky and many others – interested in epistemological relationship of “universal”, “given”, essentialist views of RC and IC in a sense of “Territory” – “Map” relationship: how the two compare, what is transformed and how. Cognitive processes of dissociation, association abstraction, generalization; Cognitive structures: images, concepts, scripts, etc. – A Depersonalized and Dialectic approach

My approach (Bakhtinian) focuses on Eventfulness, Experience (perezhivanie) and Postupok: and what does creating an imaginary chronotope do to a dialogic relationship in which meaning is significant for each other, i.e. it makes a difference, it is transformational (alteric).

Community of Players Chronotope

The Community of Players Chronotope (CoPlC) is the chronotope of the players forging and transcending their relationships by entering into play/game:

Players relate to each other with dual answerability and responsibility—they are responsible for

creating and maintaining mutual relationships in which they test their friendship, respect, regard and trust—under the changed, sometimes strange perspectives of an emergent IC; and

at the same time, they are responsible to each other for co-authoring the imaginary chronotope (IC). This is a responsibility of co-authors bound by the joint goal to create meaningful, exciting, and inspiring events.

Community of Players Chronotope

This dual orientation creates special value system and quality of the relationships among the players; it creates unique expectations by which the players evaluate both:

each other’s interpersonal postupoks RC; and each other’s contributions to developing the IC.

IC and CoPlC

My hypothesis is thatbeing in the IC: animating and living through the point of view of a character, hero – impersonating and improvising dramatic events of the characters

being in the CoPlC: becoming excited and animated by the IC as an author, a craftsman, an evaluator.

For members of the CoPlC the IC they are crafting may acquire an aesthetic value, which gives a special significance to their postupoks as authors.

When Heroes transform the Authors

Metaphors:You are Nobody

Agency – as one becomes an author, not merely of an imaginary character, but of something larger than a character, more significant and immediate, and with implications for the self and of others: change relationships, change understanding.

Boundaries

IC vs RC – as chronotopes of play are established alongside a communicational “breakdown” – i.e. an “alteric” postupok addressed to transforming relationships:

IC is understood as OUTSIDE of the regular flow of time and space. It could be “stretched” indefinitely while returning to the same point in the RC time/space

IC takes a focus on a particular “actual” problem, issue, aspect of mutual concern for the players and established it as a RC – a focus of the IC

IC is a COMMENT on the actuality – it is its transformation, giving it a particular perspective (Carnivalesque or Reverence)

M.C. Escher, Print Gallery, 1956, Litograph

(play)* and (art)*The dynamics of the catharsis as an emotional and cognitive transformation created through achieving a state “far from equilibrium” through recursive levels of boundary crossing between chronotopes

Differences and relationship between spontaneous pretend play and drama as art: processes involved in crossing the individual-social boundaries

Differences and the relationship between feelings as directly induced (empathy) and emotions as a result of artistic and aesthetic transformation. Specifically, I want to address the issue of the “creative act of overcoming the feeling” (Vygotsky, “Psychology of Art”, 1971, p. 248)

Boundaries

CoPC – RC - as chronotopes of play are established alongside a a relational “breakdown” – i.e. an “alteric” postupok addressed to transforming intersubjective relationships:

Who is IN (or OUT of) the CoPC: Building special, familiar, intimate relationships of trust, equality (non-hierarchical)

Relationship of mutual delight in co-authoring: authoring each other and authoring selves;

Relationship of coauthoring a Work of mutual significance and concern

Excerpt from V. Paley’s “You can’t say you can’t play”

Teacher: Should one child be allowed to keep another child from joining a group? A good rule might be: "You can't say you can't play.”

Ben: If you cry people should let you in.

Teacher: What if someone is not crying but feels sad? Should the teacher force children to say yes?

Many voices: No, no.

Sheila: If they don't want you to play they should just go their own way and you should say, "Clara, let's find someone who likes you better."

Angelo: Lisa and her should let Clara in because they like Clara sometimes but not all the time so they should let her in.

Nelson: They don't play with her too much so they should let her in.

Teacher: Angelo and Nelson think that even if you don't like someone all the time or play with her very much, she should have a chance to play. Shall we insist upon it? . . . I can see you don't think so.

Charlie: If I was playing, I'd let Clara in.

Teacher: When you play with Ben do you always let others in?

Charlie: Not if it's too special I might not.

Ben: Like when we was Transformers and Nelson he wanted to come in-he always has to, that's the problem-but we couldn't stop playing so I said Charlie has to decide because I didn't care and he was the boss.

Nelson: Both people can decide.Angelo: They always like someone else better.Waka: I say let two people whoever wants to play. But who they don't want has to find someone else. My brother says that. He's in fourth grade.Teacher: We should ask the older children about this.Angelo: Let anybody play if someone asks.Lisa: But then what's the whole point of playing?Nelson: You just want Cynthia.Lisa: I could play alone. Why can't Clara play alone?Angelo: I think that's pretty sad. People that is alone they has water in their eyes.Lisa: I'm more sad if someone comes that I don't want to play with.Teacher: Who is sadder, the one who isn't allowed to play or the one who has to play with someone he or she doesn't want to play with?Clara: It's more sadder if you can't play.Lisa: The other one is the same sadder.(Paley, V., 1992, pp.19-20

RC & IC in CoPC (a challenge to the Activity

theory)

ReferencesBakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination : four essays (M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind; collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. San Francisco,: Chandler Pub. Co.

Edmiston, B. (2010). Playing with children, answering wiht our lives: A Bakhtinian approach to coauthoring ethical identities in early childhood. British Journal of Educational Studies, 58(2), 197–211.

Marjanovic-Shane, A., & Beljanski-Ristić, L. (2008). From Play to Art – From Experience to Insight. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(2), 93 - 114.

Marjanovic-Shane, A. (2011). You are "Nobody"! The three chronotopes of play. In E. J. White & M. Peters (Eds.), Bakhtinian pedagogy: Opportunities and challenges for research, policy and practice in education across the globe (pp. 201-226). New York: Peter Lang Publishers.

Paley, V. G. (1992). You can't say you can't play. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). The Role of Play in Development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.