Play and Consequences

Imagine a child playing in a sandbox, dreaming up elaborate stories about the castles they’ve built with their sandbox toys.  Now, imagine a group of eighteen adults, two teams of office co-workers, throwing around a baseball according to very precise rules.  Those adults are playing too.

It seems contradictory at first.  The elaborate rules of the baseball game are very different from the child’s freeform storytelling.  How can they both be forms of play?

What makes them play is freedom from external consequences. A child in a sandbox does not fear that their day dreams will bring harm to them. A softball player knows that to swing and miss three times will result in an out but nothing else.  Play can be elaborate and ritualistic or wild and spontaneous, it can be solitary or communal, it’s usually pleasurable but can also be painful, it can involve building things up or tearing them down.  What unites all these activities is the mindset of the participants: blissfully free from worry about unintended consequences.

Work is one of the opposites of play.  When we work, we’re striving towards a goal which matters, and everything we do must be measured against that purpose.  A job can involve both work and play, if care is taken to create environments where there is no pressure to get things right the first time and no negative consequences for the employee if they fail.  But some kinds of work can never be turned into play.  You would not want a surgeon to play during surgery, happily disregarding the consequences as they cut into your body. Most jobs require at least some periods of seriousness.

But no human being can go too long without play, without respite from the fear of consequences. A surgeon must take their surgery seriously, but the must also have space in their lives to play. And because we spend so much of our lives at our jobs, they’re one of the best intervention points when it comes to bringing play back into people’s lives. It is through play that we are able to take work seriously. Without those breaks, those moments of freedom, we are too exhausted to think through the consequences when it really matters. 

The famous Facebook philosophy of “move fast and break things” is fundamentally a playful one.  Paraphrased, it just means “go ahead, don’t worry about the consequences”.  The world is your sandbox.  But of course, not having to worry about consequences is a form of privilege.  And, insulated by that privilege, Facebook and other tech companies have played games with a great many very serious things.

The problem is not that Facebook encouraged playfulness, it’s when and how they encouraged playfulness.  They handed a scalpel to a surgeon and told them “move fast and break things” rather than creating a more appropriate space for play.


Positive Capability

I posted a few months ago about negative capability – that is, the ability to tolerate uncertainty, “when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.”  Coined by the Romantic poet Keats, the term is easily associated with art but applies in all disciplines and all areas of life.  Uncertainty pervades everything.  So it behooves us to come to terms with it.

But there’s a complement to negative capability.  I’ll be unoriginal and call it positive capability.  Positive capability is the ability to create certainties in an uncertain situation.  Instead of sitting with mysteries and doubts, you do your best to clear them up.

Negative capability and positive capability are not opposed; they go hand in hand.  Negative capability in the sciences means acknowledging that the theories you rely on may be false and the data you record may be noisy or confounded; positive capability in the sciences means proposing and testing new hypotheses anyway, and provisionally accepting things that seem likely to be true.  Negative capability in community organizing means recognizing that everyone’s perspectives differ and there’s no way to reach a perfectly fair outcome for everyone; positive capability in community organizing means doing your best to understand others and seek consensus anyway, and provisionally accepting compromises as the best you can do right now.

Perhaps I’m inventing a word unnecessarily.  Perhaps ‘positive capability’ as I’ve outlined above is one way of expressing negative capability.  Both rely on a fundamental acceptance of and tolerance for uncertainty.  But Keats’ definition of negative capability seems fundamentally passive, a sort of “sitting with uncertainty” rather than “doing with uncertainty”.

I got into a debate a while back with a writer friend of mine, about art which raises questions vs art that tries to answer questions.  She argued that the fundamental purpose of art is to raise questions but too often, I find myself reaching the end of a book or movie that tries to explore a particular question and going: “And???”

For instance, Helene Wecker’s The Golem and the Jinni is a really lovely exploration of the tension between selfishness and selflessness that never really answers the question of “How do you compromise between the two?”  I found myself frustrated by the story’s ending.  Of course no answer to that question could possibly be a certain one.  But refusing to answer at all seems to be its own kind of uncertainty intolerance.

If you think of it like what is apparently called the Hegelian dialectic, raising a question corresponds to proposing a thesis and antithesis which exist in tension with one another, whereas answering the question corresponds to proposing a synthesis.  All syntheses are just new theses to be debated.  But the discussion can’t move on without them.

I think the key here is actually an emotional one.  You shouldn’t feel pressured into answering a question because you can’t tolerate a question without an answer.  But you also shouldn’t feel pressured into not answering a question because you can’t tolerate having the wrong answer.  The question of when to sit with your thesis and antithesis, and when to push towards synthesis, is itself a question with only imperfect answers.

Degrees of Separation

With the exception of rare contrivances like king’s missives and broadcast television, we learn most of what we learn and meet most of the people we meet through networking.  This has always been true, but it’s clearer than ever with social media.  To be honest I rather like it.  When a friend I trust or a writer I admire shares a link I tend to follow along enthusiastically.

A few months ago one of my favorite writers shared an essay they’d appreciated.  I clicked the link and read the essay; then I clicked to the author’s profile and learned about their other writing; then I clicked on a book they’d recently published and browsed the other titles by that publisher.  It was at this point that I came up short.  One of the other titles was a book of Holocaust denial.

Since then, I have been turning the circumstance around and around in my head.  Writing a book denying the Holocaust is clearly not okay.  But are all of the other links in this chain not okay?  Is it wrong to publish a book of Holocaust denial?  Is it wrong to publish your book through a publisher that also publishes Holocaust denial?  Is it wrong to publish an essay by an author who publishes with a publisher who also publishes Holocaust denial?  Is it wrong to share an essay by an author who publishes with a publisher who also publishes Holocaust denial?

I feel that the answer to “is it wrong to publish a book of Holocaust denial” is clearly “yes” and that the answer to “is it wrong to share an essay by an author who publishes with a publisher who also publishes Holocaust denial” is clearly “no” but the in-betweens are murky.  We’re all connected to something horrible if you look long enough.  But what connections are too close?

At the risk of being entirely incorrect, here’s my first stab at a set of guidelines to use in my own life:

  • 0 degrees (aka you are the person doing the unambiguously wrong thing) – not acceptable, for the love of god stop
  • 1 degree (direct connection to someone behaving wrongly (A)) – unacceptable, unless criticizing or stopping the wrong behavior is the primary focus of the relationship with A
  • 2 degrees (you are connected to someone (B) with a direct connection to someone behaving wrongly (A), and B is not making the wrong behavior the primary focus of the relationship with A) – acceptable only if you make clear that you disapprove of B’s behavior towards A
  • 3 degrees (you are connected to someone (C) who is connected to someone (B) who is connected to someone (A) who is behaving wrongly, and neither C nor B is attempting to get their respective connection to change their behavior) – pretty much fine regardless, we have to stop holding people responsible somewhere

Obviously these guidelines would vary based on how harmful the wrong behavior is, the kind of relationship the pairs of people have and how much the relationship inherently supports the wrong behavior, and how successful each individual feels they’re being at trying to change the behavior.  Human relationships are messy things.  But I think there’s value in vague abstractions like this, so long as they’re not misunderstood as rules set in stone.