Huizinga, everything is “play” or how everything, after all, can be “false-play”: a few problems
Araucaria, ISSN: 1575-6823, Vol: 26, Issue: 57, Page: 91-112
2024
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
This article will consider some problems with Huizinga’s work, Homo Ludens, in which the social factor “play” was proposed as a constant and the basis of human civilisation, in short, that “everything is play”. The critique will take into account some of the main arguments presented therein, resulting in an analysis of what is considered to be a conceptual confusion between “play” and “game”, or “ludicity” and “game”; a contradiction between the author’s own terms when comparing a presumed “play” of the past with what he considers to be that of the present; and an engagement that is co-related with the two previous points. With this path, the Huizingian hypothesis of a “false play” should also be clarified.
Bibliographic Details
Editorial Universidad de Sevilla
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know