American Political Science
Association Meeting (2018)
Boston, Massachusetts
Playtime Politics:
The Rapidly Growing Mismatch
Between Biology and Culture
Fri, August 31, 12:00 to 1:30pm
Session Organized by:
Ronald F. White, Ph.D.
Mount St. Joseph University
Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel
Session Description
By: Ronald F. White
Mount St. Joseph University
Abstract
Evolutionary
psychologists have long argued that there is an ever-growing “mismatch” between
human behavior that has been shaped primarily by biological evolution, and
behavior that has been shaped by cultural evolution. That same idea holds true
for political behavior. One of the more promising, yet often neglected areas of
evolutionary political research is the study of the biological and cultural
forces that shape the political regulation of childhood play. The fact that
young humans, and other primates exhibit similar playtime bodily motions and
activities suggests an evolutionary component. Yet, it also obvious, that there
is, now, a growing mismatch between our slowly evolving Pleistocene,
hunter-gatherer brains and the rise of the political regimes that now shape the
global human environment. This research panel will explore the evolutionary
psychology and/or the evolutionary politics of childhood play. Panelists may
document the various Post-AR spheres of influence that now shape childhood play,
including technological evolution, economic evolution, and/or sociopolitical
evolution; and the resulting mismatches. Panelists may also explore the
developmental implications of this mismatch and/or suggest how contemporary
political leaders might close (or at least reduce) that ever-expanding
conflict.
Introduction to Session
By: Ronald F. White
Mount St. Joseph University
This session will focus, primarily on the proximate and ultimate
explanations for playground technology. Although there is much cultural
variation “how” young children play in various historical and cultural
settings, there are at least some timeless universals that explain “why”
children play in those contexts. Conceptually, we differentiate between: active
v. passive play, individual play v. group play, and supervised v. unsupervised
play. We will also explore the moral and legal dimensions of playgrounds, and
how and why societies and governments regulate playgrounds, most notably: how
and where playgrounds can be built; who can build playgrounds, and who pays for
the construction and maintenance of those playgrounds; and how and why those
standards are morally/legally) monitored and controlled. And finally, we will discern
how these regulations have affected the psychological development of children
and their families. Here is what you can look forward to. Eli will identify the
timelessly universal bodily motions that underlie child’s play in playgrounds,
David will talk about of medicine has shaped (and continues to shape) our
perception of risk. Charles will talk about how and why political regulations
have led to increasingly safer playgrounds that children don’t want to utilize.
And Rachel, will talk about the timelessly universal childhood game “Ring
around the Rosy” and how and why children (and adults) creatively express their
feelings toward epidemics via combinations of dance and song.
Comments on Individual
Presentations
By: Ronald F. White (Mount
St. Joseph University)
Presentation #1
Eli White (Northern Kentucky University)
“Affordance Psychology and the Evolution of
Playground Technology”
Abstract:
In the realm of perceptual psychology
there is a wide body of research that investigates how the environment
determines which actions are possible. Originally coined by perceptual
psychologist J.J Gibson (1979), the concept of affordances describes how
properties of the animal in relation to properties of the environment can
inform or specify what actions are possible. Childhood playgrounds, in all
times and all places, reflect a predisposition to engage in specific bodily
motions such as: up and down, back and forth, and around and around. This
presentation will explain why playground technologies tend to replicate these
patterns, especially: monkey bars, swings, see-saws, and merry-go-rounds; and,
how and why adults seek to politically regulate these technologies.
Comments: Eli’s presentation integrates affordance psychology with the physical
movements of children and adults engaged in “playtime: especially: up and down,
back and forth, and around and around. Today, these same motions contribute to the
“fun” (pleasure) associated with most playgrounds, video games, and movies. The
question of the ultimate causation of the pleasure of these motions or the
biological purpose that these motions have played and continue to play in human
survival certainly provides and important portal into the nature and purpose(s)
of human play. His analysis will eventually be supported by research he will
conduct with the approval of Northern Kentucky University’s Institutional
Review Board, which itself illustrates why it is so difficult to conduct
playtime research on children. He will also discuss the recent rise of natural “playscapes”
as an alternative to traditional playgrounds.
Presentation #2
David Vanderburgh (Yukon-Kuskokwim Health
Corporation)
"Medicine and the Growing Problems of Risk-Averse
Playgrounds"
Abstract:
The hallmark of evolutionary politics has been the ever-rising legal
standards for health and safety of citizens. In most recent years, the
increased regulation of childhood playgrounds has produced successive
generations of safety conscious, risk-averse adults. As risk-aversion
increases, so does the power of government to protect us from ourselves. Are
there any objective standards for acceptable childhood risk-taking, or have
public and/or private playgrounds, already, become so safety conscious, that
they are no longer attractive to venues for child play? What, if anything, can
be done to restore, at least a modicum of playground risk-taking?
Comments: David’s presentation explain the role that the medical profession (esp.
physicians) has played in shaping risk-averse childhood playtime, by providing
authoritative instructions for directing parental, institutional, and
sociopolitical responsibility for safe and/or healthy children. Since the
1970s, the sociopolitical influence of physicians (especially pediatricians) along
with professional and institutional liability concerns have been especially important.
The key actors include: insurance companies, tort-friendly state and federal
courts and legislatures, and lawyers. Legal liability for childhood injuries that
take place on playgrounds affect not only the owners of the playgrounds where
children get injured, but also hospitals
and professionals that treat those injuries. Thus institutions have become
increasingly risk-averse out of fear of not only overly-generous payoffs, but
also ever-spiraling insurance premiums, as physicians, hospitals, and insurance
companies seek to avoid paying ever-spiraling legal damages to parents,
lawyers, and opposing insurance companies.
Presentation #3
Charles Kroncke: (Mount St. Joseph University)
“The Economics of Boredom: Risk-Averse Playgrounds
and Indoor Play”
Abstract:
In recent times, childhood playground technology has become subject to
increasingly higher legalized safety standards. Coinciding with these increased
safety concerns we also have declining childhood interest in collective outdoor
play. As the costs associated with purchasing and installing these risk-free
playgrounds increase, the number of children that utilize these playgrounds has
decreased. This paper will attempt to explain how/why the number of playgrounds
has increased, despite declining childhood interest and the increase in
interest in stationary indoor play.
Comments: Charles’s presentation focuses on the political economy of children’s
playgrounds (public and private) and the recent rise of risk-averse playgrounds.
Charles argues that at least a portion of the pleasure that children experience
in playground activity has always been risk-related. However, politicians in
their never-ending quest to make playgrounds safer have inadvertently
contributed to the rise of “safe-but-boring” playgrounds; and perhaps even the
decline of childhood interest in outdoor activity as well. He also observes
that corporate behavior is also a major component in the institutionalization
of risk-free playgrounds, as corporate designers, manufacturers, and installers
seek to protect themselves from liability. Charles proposes that, like other
aspects of human endeavor, the free market rather than government regulation provides
the most reliable portal into designing, building, and maintaining playgrounds
that are both fun and reasonably safe.
Rachel Constance: (Walsh University)
“Ring Around the Rosy: The Biology and Culture of
Childhood Games and Epidemics”
Abstract:
Epidemic disease plays a central role in the development of human
societies, through a symbiotic relationship that predates the development of
agriculture. Many historians have explored how epidemics have shaped human
history demographically, culturally, politically, and financially. However,
less research has explored how the underlying biology of epidemic disease has
shaped the experience of childhood. This paper will explore how the biology of
epidemics such as the bubonic plague, cholera, and more recently, HIV, have
manifested in the culture of childhood play. It will focus particularly on
sources that help us understand how children processed the morbidity of such
diseases through childhood play, including games, books, and nursery rhymes.
Comments: Rachel’s presentation brings together a wide variety of both proximate
and ultimate causes that underlie the children’s game “ring around the rosy.”
Although the game arose in the historical context of the plague, both children
and adults at all times and places are naturally predisposed toward: holding
hands singing, and dancing in circles in time with rhythmic phrases. While adults
teach “ring around the rosy” to young children at an early age, those universal
components (singing, dancing in circles, holding hands, and falling down) are
deeply embedded in human play, worldwide, and subject to ultimate explanation.
Even adults incorporate those components in their own culturally bound songs
and dances. It would be interesting to find out how many other songs and dances
performed by various cultures (in various times and places) commemorate natural
disasters and/or political events. Worldwide, there are also laws that encourage
and/or forbid singing, dancing, holding hands, and boys and girls playing
together in both public and private spheres.
General Session Conclusions
By Ronald F. White:
Professional
tradition at conferences dictates that commentators attempt to find common
ground between seemingly disparate presentations. Given the fact that all of
the papers presented today will be part of a book I am editing for my forthcoming
(Spring 2019) sabbatical from Mount St. Joseph University, common ground has
already been forged via hours of reference-sharing and scholarly conversation
between longtime friends. Philosophical tradition also dictates that I try to
limit that “common ground” to three main points of agreement.
First,
given the fact that everyone on this panel are parents and/or grandparents, we
all have similar observations on how children play, especially on playgrounds.
I think we all agree that there are often profound gender-based, individual based,
and developmental differences between children in terms of risk-taking limits,
even within families. Therefore, any ultimate explanation for risk-averse
child’s play, must acknowledge profound variation, within families, cultures,
and even over the course of a child’s lifetime.
Second,
I think we’ll agree that a child’s propensity for risk-taking can be expanded
and/or contacted under various environmental conditions and in various social
contexts; especially when young children play with little or no adult
supervision, play with older or younger children; and/or play with strangers,
friends, or close relatives.
Third,
as parents, we all agree that we have all been influenced by the “better safe
than sorry” principle, which underlies risk-averse parenthood. Some of us have had
first-hand experience with risk-averse physicians, hospitals, and schools that routinely
order medical tests and procedures for relatively low probability medical
conditions; and for relatively low harm conditions. Nevertheless, we all admit
that when it comes to the well-being of our own children, we are all naturally risk
averse, which (in part) explains why we tolerate our government’s ongoing propensity
to legally regulate childhood and parental behavior “for the sake of our
children.” As a libertarian I find that to be very disconcerting, as state paternalism
continues to run rampant in the United States and the authority of parents is
rapidly being diminished. There’s much more to be said about the Evolutionary
Politics of how, where, and why children play, especially within in liberal
democracies.
APSA Links
Sub Unit
Individual
Presentations
Affordance
Psychology and the Evolution of Playground Technology -
Eliah James
White, Northern Kentucky University
The
Growing Problem of Risk-Averse Childhood Playgrounds - David F Vanderburgh,
Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
Chair
Pennsylvania State University, Harrisburg
Discussant
Mount St. Joseph University