








































Children’s Folklo re review

volume 37 
2015

Published by the 

Children’s Folklore seCtion oF the AmeriCAn Folklore soCiety

CFR_2015_R.indb   1 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Contents

From the editor                                                        5

GAmes And their rhetoriCs: An idiosynCrAtiC APPreCiAtion oF 
the Contributions oF briAn sutton-smith

Garry ChiCk                                                            7

sutton-smith’s Five eAsy PieCes

Jay MeChlinG                                                            27

inventinG the disCiPline While you breAk it All doWn: 
An essAy in memory oF briAn sutton-smith

anna Beresin                                                           41

briAn sutton-smith (1924-2015)
elizaBeth tuCker                                                        45

winner oF the 2014 william wells newell Prize:
“Children hAve their oWn World oF beinG”: An ethnoGrAPhy oF  
Children’s ACtivities on the dAy oF sArAsWAti PujA

seMontee Mitra                                                         47

Children’s Folklore seCtion: 2014 AnnuAl meetinG                         61

notes And AnnounCements                                               65

Contributors                                                           67

CFR_2015_R.indb   3 11/22/15   10:41 AM



5

From the editor

trevor j  blAnk

This thirty-seventh volume of Children’s Folklore Review is a special issue 
commemorating the life and work of the late, great Brian Sutton-Smith, a prolific 
scholar of play, children’s folklore, and developmental psychology whose 
immeasurable impact continues to resonate in the research and theoretical 
orientations of countless individuals and interdisciplinary fields of inquiry invested 
in the study of expression and creativity in childhood and adolescence. It is a true 
honor to pay our respects to his brilliant career and legacy as a friend, academic, 
and human being.

I can recall my own first encounter with the gifted mind of Brian Sutton-Smith. 
As a graduate student at Indiana University in 2006 I stumbled upon his seminal 
work, The Ambiguity of Play (1997). There, I found a powerful observation (on 
page 198 of my 2009 copy of the book): “The opposite of play... is not work... it 
is depression.” It was such a crisp and succinct truth to ingest, especially at that 
time in my life where the rigors of graduate school felt so formidable and all 
consuming. It is a truth that I often come back to whenever I find myself a bit 
overextended or occasionally overwhelmed—in other words, times where such 
postulations serve as a gratifying dose of reality amid an otherwise foggy brain. 
But even out of context, the statement holds up. There is an elusively magical 
quality to it, much like Brian Sutton-Smith’s inspiring body of scholarship itself, 
which has and will continue to delight and inform students of children’s folklore 
for generations to come.

Unfortunately, I never had the opportunity to meet or collaborate with Brian 
Sutton-Smith, but the first four contributors to this special issue, Garry Chick, Jay 
Mechling, Anne Beresin, and Elizabeth Tucker, most certainly have, and each 
of their essays weave between their personal and professional admiration and 
memories of working with Brian Sutton-Smith alongside critical insights into his 
contributions to the study of children’s folklore (among many other disciplines and 
areas of specialization) and his lasting legacy for those who have had the honor 
and pleasure of learning from and with him. I am pleased to note that this special 
issue also features the 2014 William Wells Newell Prize winning essay, “‘Children 
Have Their Own World of Being’: An Ethnography of Children’s Activities on the 
Day of Saraswati Puja,” by Semontee Mitra, which stands as an immersive venture 
into the world of child’s play during a culturally significant gathering. Her essay 
is a most fitting addition to complement this special issue’s celebration of Brian 
Sutton-Smith.

All back issues of Children’s Folklore Review since 1990, except for the most 
recent volume, are now available online through our digital repository, hosted by 
IUScholarWorks. To view the repository, please visit https://scholarworks.iu.edu/
dspace/handle/2022/13438 (or via the shortcut http://tiny.cc/CFRarchive); browse 
“By Issue Date” to scroll through all issues chronologically. I should note that we 
are currently exploring the possibility of fully or partially transitioning CFR into a 

CFR_2015_R.indb   5 11/22/15   10:41 AM



From the editor

6

digital publication beginning in 2016, and I encourage subscribers to keep an eye 
on the AFS Children’s Folklore Section website (http://www.afsnet.org/?Children) 
and Facebook page (http://tiny.cc/childrensfolklore), as well as the AFS Review 
newsletter for any pertinent updates. Regardless of what direction things go, we 
do intend to maintain a print presence in some capacity, and we will be absolutely 
sure to keep all subscribers informed in the months ahead of any changes. One 
thing that definitely won’t change is our commitment to publishing the finest 
folkloristic scholarship pertaining to the intricate components of childhood and 
adolescence. I welcome correspondence should anyone wish to discuss the 
journal and/or contributing to it, especially individuals who are currently working 
on research that may fit well within the scope of Children’s Folklore Review. Please 
feel free to contact me at blanktj@potsdam.edu.

Finally, I would like to thank Elizabeth (Libby) Tucker for all of her time 
and assistance in helping me transition into my new role as editor of Children’s 
Folklore Review. No matter how small of a question I’ve had, Libby has 
always enthusiastically replied with helpful feedback and positive words of 
encouragement. I am also grateful to Mandy Brennan, one of my students at 
SUNY Potsdam, who compiled an exhaustive bibliography of Brian Sutton-Smith’s 
publications during the early preparation stages of this special issue. Additionally, 
I would like to express my gratitude to Kathy Buchta for her continually fantastic 
work in shaping the journal’s layout and design, and Sheridan Press for its great 
printing and mailing services that make it possible to bring this journal into the 
hands of readers across the globe. And special thanks are also due to Emily 
Sutton-Smith and the entire extended Sutton-Smith family for their time and 
generosity in corresponding throughout the production of this special issue.

It is my sincerest hope that you find reading this special issue to feel much 
more like play than work. For starters, please be sure to check out the incredibly 
important, mind-blowing factoid at the bottom of this very page for a quick primer 
on the dynamic nature of play (and to get into the spirit of this special issue)!

Made you look.

CFR_2015_R.indb   6 11/22/15   10:41 AM



7

Games and their rhetoriCs: 
an idiosynCratiC aPPreCiation oF  

the Contributions oF brian sutton-smith

GArry ChiCk

Brian Sutton-Smith left a legacy of more than 40 books and 300 articles published, 
along with numerous conference presentations, television appearances and 
projects, and speaking engagements around the world over a 60-plus year career. 
While not all of these directly engaged play, this corpus surely makes Sutton-
Smith history’s most prolific scholar and advocate of play. The majority of his 
research on play was directed at children and psychological in nature but he was 
deeply eclectic and bridged a variety of other disciplines including anthropology, 
sociology, folklore, history, philosophy, biology, ethology, and neurology, among 
others. In addition to several of the essays in this special issue, his work has been 
reviewed and summarized by others (see Meckley 2015) and by himself (Sutton-
Smith 1995; 2008). I edited two issues of the journal Play & Culture, plus part of 
a third in 1991, as a Festschrift for Sutton-Smith while Anthony Pellegrini edited 
another in 1995. Sutton-Smith further cemented his legacy with the publication 
of his classic book The Ambiguity of Play (1997). In this book, he convincingly 
showed that how we have thought about and conducted research on play has 
been based in a series of underlying cultural and ideological values and that 
understanding them may lead to a more unified discussion of the phenomenon.

To review his career and contributions to play research alone, without even 
considering what he did for other fields such as children’s folklore, is a daunting 
task and one that I am unprepared to execute. While Brian was my friend, we 
were never collaborators. He did, however, co-author several very influential 
articles with my Ph.D. advisor, John M. Roberts, during the 1960s. Our association 
since the mid-1970s rests, in large part, on that conduit. So, as a friend, but outside 
observer, and an anthropologist with interests in expressive culture, broadly 
considered, but adult play and leisure, more particularly, my review of Brian’s 
contributions to play theory over his long career will be personal and idiosyncratic 
rather than comprehensive. In particular, I will focus on Sutton-Smith’s early 
contributions to the study of games and suggest how they may have influenced 
his thinking on play, specifically in terms of play research that he regarded as 
reflecting the rhetoric of progress, the rhetoric of fate, and the rhetoric of power.

In The Ambiguity of Play, as well as several earlier publications (Sutton-Smith 
1993a; 1993b; 1995), Sutton-Smith (1997) detailed seven of what he termed 
rhetorics, or narratives designed to persuade, about how play has been, or should 
be, conceptualized. These include the rhetoric of play as progress, the rhetoric 
of play as fate, the rhetoric of play as power, the rhetoric of play as identity, the 
rhetoric of play as the imaginary, the rhetoric of play as the self, and the rhetoric 
of play as frivolity. Briefly, the rhetoric of play as progress is based on the notion 
that play is adaptive, for both animals and children, and is a context for their 
socialization and enculturation for the latter. The rhetoric of fate, which Sutton-

CFR_2015_R.indb   7 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Games and Their rheTorics chick 

8

Smith regarded as the oldest of the group, has generally been applied to games 
of chance based on the belief that the human condition is controlled by external 
forces—the gods, luck, and so on—and possibly influenced only by magical or 
religious manipulation. The rhetoric of power is most often implicated in athletics, 
sports, and physical contests and is a representation of conflict. The rhetoric of 
identity usually applied to festivals and celebrations of community. The rhetoric 
of the imaginary idealizes the imagination and celebrates the creativity that so 
often occurs in play. The rhetoric of the self generally refers to solitary and risky 
activities, such as individual hobbies or bungee jumping, but also to the intrinsic 
and aesthetic experiences of the players. Finally, the rhetoric of frivolity has a 
reflexive character, “applied to the activities of the idle or the foolish” (Sutton-
Smith 1997:11), but also acts as playful dissent against the orderly world imposed 
by society. Sutton-Smith (1997) termed each of these a rhetoric “because its 
ideological values are something that the holders like to persuade others to believe 
in and to live by” (11). He noted “By seeing how the play descriptions and play 
theories can be tied in with such broad patterns of ideological value, one has 
greater hope of coming to understand the general character of play theory, which 
is the ultimate objective here” (12). But, in the long process of arriving at this 
ultimate objective, Sutton-Smith began with the ethnographic study of children’s 
games.

The Study of Games

Games appear to be a universal component in the content of cultures, both past 
and present (Brown 1991; Murdock 1945) and their study has occupied a small, 
but relatively consistent, niche in anthropological research for more than 150 
years. Lewis Henry Morgan, for example, in League of the Iroquois (1851) claimed 
that the Iroquois had six principal games that could be described as either athletic 
or as games of chance. In the first cross-cultural comparative study of games, Sir 
Edward Burnett Tylor (1879) attempted to show that apparent similarities between 
patolli, as played by the Aztecs, and pachisi, as played in India, provided evidence 
that the civilization of India had influenced the culture in Mesoamerica. Tylor’s 
thesis was soon dismissed and the cross-cultural comparative study of games was 
dormant in anthropology for the next 80 years. 

Nevertheless, numerous ethnographic descriptions of games, both among 
children and adults, continued to be produced. These include Stuart Culin’s studies 
of games in Brooklyn, New York (1891), in Korea, China, and Japan (1895), in 
Hawaii (1899), and his canonical treatises on Native American games (1902; 1907). 
Other studies include Firth’s (1930) ethnography of a dart match in Tikopia, 
Raum’s (1953) description of hoop-and-pole games in Africa, and Cooper’s (1949) 
survey of games among Native South Americans. In the functionalist tradition, 
Stumpf and Cozens (1947; 1949) claimed that games and sports served as training 
for war among the Maori of New Zealand and the natives of Fiji. Similarly, Dunlap 
(1951) suggested that Samoan games and sports interrelated with aspects of social 
organization that included not only warfare but also education, economics, and 
religion. Sutton-Smith made important contributions to game ethnography with 

CFR_2015_R.indb   8 11/22/15   10:41 AM



ChiCk  Games and Their rheToriCs

9

several studies of the games of New Zealand children in the early 1950s (Sutton-
Smith 1951; 1953a; 1953b) culminating in a book, The Games of New Zealand 
Children in 1959.

The Cross-Cultural Comparative Study of Games

Although ethnographic studies of games continued to be produced, cross-cultural 
comparative research on games languished. Then, in their classic 1959 article, 
“Games in Culture,” Roberts, Arth, and Bush launched not only the modern era 
of cross-cultural comparative research on games but also of expressive culture 
(to include play, sport, art, music, and other leisure pursuits), more generally. 
Additionally, they provided both a definition of games and a system for their 
classification that have since become standards in anthropology and have been 
used in other fields, as well. Roberts et al. (1959) defined a game as “a recreational 
activity characterized by: (1) organized play, (2) competition, (3) two or more 
sides, (4) criteria for determining the winner, and (5) agreed upon rules” (597). 
They regarded certain other recreational activities, found around the globe but 
lacking competition, such as “noncompetitive swimming, top-spinning, and string-
figure making” as “amusements” (597). 

Roberts et al. (1959) classified games in terms of what leads to winning and 
losing, that is, physical skill, strategy, or chance. Therefore,

Games of physical skill as herein defined must involve the use 
of physical skill, but may or may not involve strategy or chance; 
examples are marathon races, prize fights, hockey, and the hoop and 
pole games. In games of strategy, physical skill must be absent and a 
strategy must be used; chance may or may not be involved. Chess, go, 
poker, and the Ashanti game of wari are examples. Finally, games of 
chance are so defined that chance must be present and both physical 
skill and strategy must be absent; examples are high card wins, dice 
games, and the moccasin games. (597–98)

Roberts et al.’s (1959) final and most important claim was that games are 
expressive models of other, important real-world activities. These include things 
such as hunting, warfare, social interaction, and divination: 

It is also evident that most games are models of various cultural 
activities. Many games of physical skill simulate combat or hunting, 
as in boxing and competitive trap shooting. Games of strategy may 
simulate chase, hunt, or war activities, as in backgammon fox and 
geese, or chess. The relationship between games of chance and 
divining (ultimately a religious activity) is well known. In instances 
where a game does not simulate a current cultural activity, it will 
be found that the games ancestral to it were more clearly models. 
(1959:599)

CFR_2015_R.indb   9 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Games and Their rheTorics chick 

10

Moreover, Roberts et al. (1959) regarded the types of games existing in various 
cultures to be products of, or at least related to, child socialization practices and 
to form valuable contexts for learning, particularly about things that may be 
dangerous in real life, such as hunting big game and warfare.

In his first anthropological article on games, “The Meeting of Maori and 
European Cultures and its Effects upon the Unorganized Games of Maori 
Children,” Sutton-Smith (1951a) showed that the Maori game huripapa, a form of 
knucklebones (a game that resembles jacks), predated European contact despite 
a claim that it had been introduced to the Maori by early whalers. Additionally, 
he briefly described numerous types of games then still played in Maori schools. 
Given his abiding interest in games, after arriving in the U.S. permanently in 1956 
and having published (with clinical psychologist Benjamin G. Rosenberg) “Sixty 
years of historical change in the game preferences of American children” in 1961, 
he was drawn to the work of Roberts, then a professor of anthropology at Cornell 
University. He first collaborated with Roberts on a cross-cultural comparative 
project based primarily on the idea that games are expressive models of real-
world activities (Roberts and Sutton-Smith 1962). In particular, they viewed games 
as “exercises in mastery, with games of strategy, chance, and physical skill being 
related, respectively, to the mastery of the social system, the supernatural, and the 
nexus of the self with the environment” (168).

Roberts and Sutton-Smith (1962) utilized ratings for child training for 111 
societies compiled by Bacon, Barry, and Child (1955). Bacon et al. (1955) rated 
boys and girls separately for child training in “responsibility, obedience, self-
reliance, achievement, nurturance, and independence” (168). The ratings provided 
information on rewards for showing the behavior as well as the amount of anxiety 
displayed for not showing the behavior, the frequency of the various behaviors, 
and the degree of conflict over them. Of the 111 societies, data on games and 
game play were available in the Cross-Cultural Survey and Human Relations Area 
Files based at Yale University. Twenty-seven societies contained “moderately 
complete descriptions of games, and 29 societies provided descriptions which 
were usable though incomplete” (Roberts and Sutton-Smith 1962:168). Game 
play was not distinguished on the basis of age or sex since the ethnographies 
often failed to provide such information. Hence, the separate child training 
ratings for boys and girls presented a problem. Roberts and Sutton-Smith solved 
this by combining the ratings for boys and girls as Bacon et al. (1955) indicated 
that females tended to receive mostly positive ratings (i.e., rewards) while males 
received both (i.e., rewards and punishments). Roberts and Sutton-Smith (1962) 
addressed only four types of games: (1) games of physical skill, (2) games of 
physical skill with strategy, (3) games of strategy, and (4) games of chance. They 
found no instances of games that involved all three outcome determinants, that 
is, games of physical skill with both strategy and chance. Games of physical skill 
with chance or strategy with chance were too infrequent to consider separately so 
they combined the former with games of physical skill and the latter with games 
of strategy.

Roberts et al. (1959) had determined that presence of games of strategy was 
associated with cultural complexity when measured by the degree of political 

CFR_2015_R.indb   10 11/22/15   10:41 AM



ChiCk  Games and Their rheToriCs

11

integration and social stratification in societies. Because complex social systems 
presumably required obedience to authority, Roberts and Sutton-Smith (1962) were 
not surprised to find that the presence of games of strategy was associated with 
childhood training in obedience. In particular, societies that had games of strategy 
were more likely to reward children for being obedient, to punish them for 
disobedience, to have high frequency of obedient behaviors, and to instill conflict 
over obedience. The presence of games of chance was found to be associated 
with rewards for responsibility, the frequency of responsibility, and anxiety 
over achievement. Finally, the number of games of physical skill had significant 
relationships with rewards for achievement and frequency of achievement. 
Games of physical skill with strategy also were associated with punishment 
for not achieving. In sum, Roberts and Sutton-Smith (1962) concluded that the 
relationships they found “show fairly specifically that strategy is associated with 
obedience and not with responsibility or achievement, chance with responsibility 
and not with obedience, and physical skill with achievement and not with 
obedience and responsibility” (174).

Based on these results, Roberts and Sutton-Smith (1962) then conducted what 
they termed a “subsystem validation” to examine differences between American 
girls and boys. Since “girls are given more consistent obedience and responsibility 
training” while boys received higher training in achievement, girls should then 
be more interested and involved in playing games of strategy and of chance 
while boys should prefer games of physical skill. They tested these conjectures 
using data on the game preferences of 1,900 third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade 
Midwestern children gathered earlier by Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg (1961). 
The cross-cultural findings indicated that, since girls received more training in 
responsibility and obedience while boys received more training in achievement, 
the former should prefer games of strategy and chance while the latter should be 
biased in favor of games of physical skill. Specifically, they found that boys and 
girls shared preferences for 18 games of strategy although girls preferred five not 
liked by boys. Girls preferred five games of chance not liked by boys while boys 
preferred one game not liked by boys. Girls liked five games of physical skill not 
liked by boys while boys liked 20 not preferred by girls. Although not all of their 
premises were supported in a statistically significant sense, all were generally 
in the directions predicted. In a later study (Sutton-Smith, Roberts, and Kozelka 
1963), they found support for the same predications among adults.

Based on their findings with regard to games, which they regarded as 
expressive cultural models, Roberts and Sutton-Smith (1962) proposed a 
general theory of involvement in cultural models that they termed the “conflict-
enculturation” hypothesis (184). They indicated

The theory implies (1) that there is an over-all process of cultural 
patterning whereby society induces conflict in children through its 
child-training processes; (2) that society sees through appropriate 
arrays and varieties of ludic models to provide an assuagement of 
these conflicts by an adequate representation of their emotional and 
cognitive polarities in ludic structure; and (3) that through these 

CFR_2015_R.indb   11 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Games and Their rheTorics chick 

12

models society tries to provide a form of buffered learning through 
which the child can make enculturative step-by-step progress toward 
adult behavior. (183–84)

Games, and presumably other expressive cultural models, are therefore 
microcosms of social structures wherein winning and losing are represented. 
Individuals seek these models because, in them, they can find codifications of the 
cognitive and emotional aspects of conflicts inculcated during their childhoods 
that are not available to them in real world cultural participation due to their lack 
of maturity. So, for example, in games of strategy such as chess or go, individuals 
can practice deceiving and outwitting powerful opponents while also commanding 
forces while still being commanded by others in the real world. According to 
Roberts and Sutton-Smith (1962)

Between the ages of seven and twelve years the child learns, in 
simple direct form, how to take a chance, how to show skill, and how 
to deceive. Increasingly, in complex games, he learns the reversibility 
of these styles—when to rely on one type of success gambit rather 
than another, how to combine them, etc. What he learns from the 
games are the cognitive operations involved in competitive success. 
These cannot be learned by young children in full-scale cultural 
participation. The can be learned only through models, whether 
games or models of other types. (183)

In a 1963 publication, Roberts and Sutton-Smith, along with Adam Kendon, 
focused on models of strategy not only in games but also in folktales (Roberts, 
Sutton-Smith, and Kendon 1963). In this study, Sutton-Smith combined his interests 
in folktales with Roberts’ interest in games by examining folktales “that resemble 
games in that they display definite outcomes with winners and losers” (186). 
They asserted that “Folk tales and games are quite different media of expression, 
but they are similar in that they model or represent behaviors occurring in other 
settings, both real and imaginary” (185). Their general hypothesis was that strategy 
in folktales will occur in cultural settings that also include games of strategy. In 
line with their previous research, they hypothesized, specifically, that strategic 
outcomes in folktales, when they occur, should be accompanied by games of 
strategy, high obedience training, and high levels of political complexity (a proxy 
for cultural complexity, more generally). To test their hypothesis, Roberts et al. 
(1963) used a sample of folktales assembled by Child, Storn, and Veroff (1958). 
Twenty-seven of the societies in the sample had previously been scored in terms 
of the presence of game types. Twelve folktales from each society, purportedly 
representative of the types of tales found in each, were judged by three raters 
whether they had an outcome, that is, an apparent contest between two sides, 
or not. Only those folktales agreed on by at least two of the raters were chosen 
for the study. Then, the three judges (based on definitions established by the 
first judge) rated the tales in the sample in terms of the relative extent to which 
the outcome for each involved physical skill, strategy, and chance although the 

CFR_2015_R.indb   12 11/22/15   10:41 AM



ChiCk  Games and Their rheToriCs

13

primary interest in the study was strategy. Roberts et al. (1963) found, in support 
of their hypothesis, that “(a) the strategic mode of competition is modeled in 
both games and folktales in a number of cultures; (b) where the strategic mode 
of completion is modeled in one medium (i.e., games) it is likely to be modeled 
in the other (i.e., folktales); and (c) the strategic mode of completion as modeled 
in games and in folktales is associated with both obedience training and cultural 
complexity” (195–96). Based on these and their earlier findings, Roberts et al. 
(1963) speculated, in terms of cultural evolution, that

the probable order of the appearance of the cultural inventories of 
child-training procedures and models is as follows: (a) nurturance 
and self reliance with no games; (b) independence, responsibility, and 
achievement with games of physical skill and games of chance; and 
(c) obedience with games of strategy. (198)

In a 1964 study, Sutton-Smith and Roberts showed that 8 to 12 year old children 
were able to attribute playing style-like characteristics to others. They created 
a categorization of players wherein those who “act (a) like players in games of 
chance and try to succeed by relying on luck, i.e., are fortunists; (b) like players 
in games of physical skill who try to succeed by applying physical power, i.e., 
are potents; or (c) like players in games of strategy who try to succeed by making 
wise decisions, i.e., are strategists” (15). Children who either lacked followers or 
gave up in the face of difficulties were regarded as failures. In addition to the 
children’s sociometric ratings of others, teachers rated the children in terms of 
their success in the classroom and on the playground. Sutton-Smith and Roberts 
(1964) found that 76% of the children named as classroom successes were in the 
top quarter of the distribution of strategists as perceived by other children. Fifty 
per cent indicated by teachers as successful on the playground were in the top 
quarter attributed as being potents. Fifty-nine strategists, but only four potents 
were regarded as classroom successes by teachers while 34 potents, but only 17 
strategists, were classified as playground successes. Teachers classified 65% of the 
children regarded by their peers as either fortunists or failures as failures either in 
the classroom or on the playground.

Sutton-Smith and Roberts (1964) extended their study by further examining 
the children who were in the top quarters of the distributions in each of the 
categories. As some children were in the top quarters of more than one category, 
Sutton-Smith and Roberts created the additional categories of potent-strategists, 
potent-fortunists, and fortunist-failures. They reported: 

Our results show that boys make distinctions among children who 
succeed by strategy, children who succeed by power, and children 
who succeed by using a combination of these two types. Boys do not, 
however, appear to distinguish clearly between children who succeed 
by good fortune and those who simply fail. To succeed by luck is 
apparently tantamount to failure.

CFR_2015_R.indb   13 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Games and Their rheTorics chick 

14

Girls, on the other hand, distinguish between children who 
succeed by fortune and those who simply fail. The largest difference 
between the two groups is to be found in the girls’ game preferences 
in which the fortunist—failures are not unlike the success groups 
in their responses, whereas the pure failure group is atypical and 
immature. The distinction made by girls between potent-strategists, 
strategists, and potent seems not to be a distinction in type as it is 
with boys so much as a distinction in degree. Potent-strategists have 
most of the desirable characteristics, strategists somewhat less, and 
potents even less; but all three groups are superior to fortunists and 
failures. (31)

Sutton-Smith and Roberts (1964) concluded that children can consistently place 
each other into categories based on games and that boys, in particular, play games 
that are analogous to their success styles. Girls tend not distinguish among success 
styles but do so among failure groups.

Roberts, Hoffmann, and Sutton-Smith (1965) then examined playing styles in 
the context of a simple game of pure strategy, tic-tac-toe. In a field experimental 
study, they had each sixth grader in a class play every other twice resulting 
in a total of 313 wins/losses wins and 910 draws. Arithmetic ability related to 
winning play styles while intelligence seemed to be linked to safe play styles 
(i.e., drawing). In a follow up study, Sutton-Smith and Roberts (1967) gave tic-
tac-toe problems (developed earlier by Hoffmann) to girls and boys participating 
in the Achievement Development Project at the Fels Research Institute in Yellow 
Springs, Ohio.1 They found numerous associations between problem solutions 
and children’s play styles. What they termed the “winning girl” was positively 
associated with the instigation of verbal and physical aggression, associative play, 
dominance of other girls, concern with mastery of motor skills, and negatively 
associated with socioeconomic status, the amount of time spent alone on tasks, 
task persistence, and gender-appropriate play choices. The “drawing girl” was 
positively associated with socioeconomic status, need achievement, and gender-
appropriate play but negatively associated with the instigation of physical 
aggression and concern with mastery of motor skills. The “drawing boy” was 
positively associated with need achievement and approval seeking from adults.

In addition to their work on games of strategy and folktales involving strategy, 
Roberts and Sutton-Smith looked at the cross-cultural correlates of games of 
chance more extensively in a 1966 publication, “Cross-Cultural Correlates of 
Games of Chance.” In this study, they used results from a pre-publication version 
of Textor’s (1967) A Cross-Cultural Summary, a huge compendium of computer 
generated comparisons of cross-cultural codes for about 500 variables for 400 
societies selected by the editors of the journal Ethnology. For sampling purposes, 
the ethnographic universe was divided into six geographic regions. These included 
Africa, the Circum-Mediterranean, East Eurasia, the Insular Pacific, North America, 
and South America. While the sample was technically non-random, comparisons 
were accompanied by two measures of association (chi-square and phi) and 
included when the chi-square was significant at the 0.10 level.

CFR_2015_R.indb   14 11/22/15   10:41 AM



ChiCk  Games and Their rheToriCs

15

A Cross-Cultural Summary (Textor 1967) included 10 comparisons involving 
games, four of which dealt with games of chance. Roberts and Sutton-Smith (1966) 
based their article on those four comparisons. Their most important finding was 
that games of chance appear to be most common in cultural contexts involving 
uncertainty. That is, games of chance occur where “a life situation where favorable 
and unfavorable outcomes may occur in an uncertain way, not easily controlled by 
either physical skill or strategy, particularly in the areas of environmental setting, 
food production, social and political interaction, marriage, war, and religion” 
(Roberts and Sutton-Smith 1966:143).

Sutton-Smith’s fertile collaboration with Roberts culminated in a brief chapter 
in a book edited by Lueschen in 1970 titled “The Cross-Cultural and Psychological 
Study of Games” and a chapter in the Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 
edited by Triandis and Heron, in 1981 titled “Play, Games, and Sports.” Sutton-
Smith’s and Roberts’ research in the 1960s, particularly their cross-cultural studies, 
pointed to several conclusions. First, they established an evolutionary sequence of 
game development beginning with, (1) no games, (2) games of physical skill, (3) 
games of chance, and, (4) games of strategy. Roberts et al. (1959) and Roberts and 
Sutton-Smith (1962) reported, with some surprise, that some cultures (e.g., the Yir 
Yiront, the Cuna) genuinely appear not to have games. They concluded that there 
are three possibilities: (1) some societies have never had games, (2) some societies 
have lost their games through deculturation and, (3) the ethnographic reports 
may be in error. Whatever the reason for the no-game reports, later cross-cultural 
comparative research (e.g., Chick 1998; Roberts and Barry 1976) has supported the 
sequence beginning with games of physical skill.

Second, their studies indicated that games are vehicles for socialization and 
cultural learning. Socialization for achievement is associated with the presence 
of games of physical skill and is most often directed at males. Socialization for 
responsibility is associated with the presence of games of chance and is most 
often directed at females. Socialization for obedience is associated with the 
presence of games of strategy and is most often directed at females. And part 
of this socialization is directed at conflict engendered by child rearing practices 
and its assuagement. Different types of games were also found in varied cultural 
complexes. Societies heavily invested in food collection had games of physical 
skill since the games themselves served, at least in part, as models of hunting 
(and war, which could be looked on as a form of hunting) but offered greater 
safety than learning about hunting dangerous big game, for example. Games of 
chance occur in situations where uncertainty is commonly addressed by appeals to 
religious or divinatory practices. And, finally, games of strategy occur in relatively 
complex societies with distinct social strata, higher levels of political integration, 
and relatively complex technology. 

Third, games could be viewed as models of power. That, is boys (although 
not girls) were able to consistently categorize others as strategists, who lead 
through ideas, or potents, who lead through physical prowess. Sutton-Smith and 
Rosenberg (1970) reported that some of the power tactics used by siblings could 
be regarded as primarily strategic while others primarily involved physical ability. 
They argued that if the distinctions between strategic and physical approaches to 

CFR_2015_R.indb   15 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Games and Their rheTorics chick 

16

problem solving are present in general social behavior, they are also likely to exist 
in informal play. In a 1968 paper, Sutton-Smith suggested that there are “loose 
parallels” (50) between games of strategy and some daydreams, such as those 
that feature conceptual problem solving and abstract speculation. To some extent, 
this suggestion follows from the finding by Roberts and Sutton-Smith (1963) that 
folktales that have outcomes, in terms of winners and losers, can be examined 
in terms of their content involving physical skill, chance, and, especially, strategy 
on the part of protagonists. Among Western children, “Females prefer magical 
assistance (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty); males prefer personal prowess (Jack and 
the Beanstalk)” (Sutton-Smith 1971:85). Based on this line of research, Sutton-
Smith and Roberts expanded the argument that games are expressive models 
through which children, by participating in them, learn the power tactics of other 
individuals and their cultures more broadly.

While they coauthored summary chapters on games, sport, and play in 
1970 and 1981, Sutton-Smith and Roberts produced no empirical collaborations 
after their 1967 study of tic-tac-toe. For his part, Roberts continued working on 
games, as well as other expressive phenomena, through the 1970s and 1980s 
with numerous other coauthors, including me. His work was heavily influenced 
by the theorizing about child socialization and games developed in his early 
collaboration with Sutton-Smith. In particular, he sought other contexts to test the 
conflict-enculturation hypothesis that they had developed, especially in expressive 
activities among adults. Sutton-Smith, while he did not drop his interest in games, 
spent more of his research efforts on children’s less organized activities (free play, 
folk games, jokes, rhymes, make-believe, folktales, teasing) and, importantly, more 
vigorously approached topics aligned with the philosophy of science, that is, how 
values cultural relativity undergirds how we have theorized play over the years.

Games as Ambiguous Agents of Socialization

Sutton-Smith’s collaboration with Roberts provided one source of empirical 
support for Sutton-Smith’s enduring interest in both how children are socialized 
for play and the power of play to socialize. Whether that socialization was for 
good or bad remained a question and an aspect of play’s ambiguity. This was 
an interest and concern for both Sutton-Smith and Roberts. In his book, Child 
Psychology, Sutton-Smith wrote “in games, children learn all those necessary arts of 
trickery, deception, harassment, divination, and foul play that their teachers won’t 
teach them, but that are most important in successful human interrelationship in 
marriage, business, and war” (Sutton-Smith 1973:356–57). Similarly, Roberts and 
Barry (1976) related combinations of game types to cultural complexity and to 
13 traits inculcated during child training. In the cross-cultural data, they found 
evidence that, in societies where all three game types are present, obedience was 
emphasized over self-reliance or honesty. In contemporary American sports, for 
example, coaches have all but completely usurped decision-making. Hence, there 
is little need for players to be self-reliant. However, coaches value obedience and 
self-restraint. And, as for honesty, coaches teach how to shade the rules without 
getting caught. At both the University of Illinois and Penn State University, I have 

CFR_2015_R.indb   16 11/22/15   10:41 AM



ChiCk  Games and Their rheToriCs

17

had offensive and defensive linemen from the football teams in class. When asked 
how often offensive linemen are guilty of “holding,” defensive linemen respond 
“on every play” while offensive linemen answer, “never.” Obviously, there is a 
difference in perspective but also in training. Offensive linemen are coached in 
how to hold and not get caught. Roberts and Barry (1976) concluded, “If games 
build character, that character may be less than ideal” (59). As Sutton-Smith so 
often emphasized, ambiguities exist not only in how we study play but in play 
itself.

Summary: Games and the Rhetorics of Play

I chose to emphasize Sutton-Smith’s early studies of games in this essay, in part, 
because it is this area of his research with which I have the greatest familiarity. But 
I also selected it because I feel that these studies illuminated for him the notion 
that the nature of research on play, including his and Roberts’ studies of games, 
had long been deeply affected by what he came to term “rhetorics.” Finally, 
new methods, briefly described below, and updated data render the Roberts 
and Sutton-Smith cross-cultural studies of games and child socialization open to 
replication, something commonly done in the “hard” sciences but neglected in 
the psychological and social sciences (Schmidt 2009) or, when actually attempted, 
which results in a very high percentage of failure (Bohannon 2015).

Games are relatively easy to define and, therefore, identify. For the most part 
in his work, Sutton-Smith adopted the definition provided by Roberts et al. (1959), 
one that rather precisely denotes what is, and what is not, a game. In addition, 
and again for the most part, he adopted Roberts et al.’s (1959) classification of 
games based on the primary outcome determinant, that is, physical skill, strategy, 
or chance. And while he expanded the definition a bit when referring to game-
like activities of young children, he maintained interest in activities involving skill, 
strategy, and chance. He observed that the way in which not only others, but also 
he and Roberts themselves, had examined the three categories of games reflected 
distinct rhetorics. That is, he and Roberts looked at games of physical skill—what 
we would commonly refer to as sports—in terms of the rhetoric of power wherein 
children learn not only the preferred power tactics of their culture as well as how 
to identify them in others. Indeed, at one point, he and Roberts contemplated 
writing a book, tentatively titled, Games as Models of Power. Unfortunately, 
their collaboration ended before the book was written although Sutton-Smith 
contributed a chapter by that name to a Festschrift for Roberts published in 1989. 
In “Games as Models of Power,” Sutton-Smith (1989) interpreted their research 
together as showing:

1. Games are in some way functionally related to culture. They are 
not trivial or unessential or random.

2. More complex cultures have more complex games and more types 
of games, and the various associations are merely an index of 

CFR_2015_R.indb   17 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Games and Their rheTorics chick 

18

general complexity—cultures with no competitive games are very 
simple; cultures with all types are the most complex.

3. There are meaningful structural relationships between each type 
of game and its patterns of association. Thus, chance is linked 
with responsibility, divination, nomadic habits, and economic 
uncertainty; physical skill is linked with the tropics and hunting; 
central-person games are linked with independence training and 
marriage; and strategy games are linked with class stratification and 
warfare.

4. The way to explain the linkages with child-training and variables 
and with cultural variables is in terms of the conflict-enculturation 
hypothesis, which says that conflict engendered by child-training 
procedures (one is both rewarded and punished for interest in 
certain behaviors), leads to a readiness to be aroused by symbolic 
systems (games), which configure the conflict (that is, transfer it) to 
culturally useful behavior.

5. The way to prove this pattern of hypotheses is to show that the 
same patterns hold within our own culture across variations 
in personalities as were found across variations in tribes in the 
original studies (subsystem replication). Studies of adult preferences 
for games and of children’s play appear to provide support for the 
original patterns of relationships. See, in particular, the studies of 
Tick Tack Toe in The Folkgames of Children (Sutton-Smith 1972).

6. The way the enculturation aspect of this thesis works is through 
games acting as models of cultural power relationships, including 
those involving strategy, chance, force, or arbitrary status (4–5).

Sutton-Smith went on to critique these studies and their conclusions based on 
post-1970 research and theorizing. More important, however, is that he recognized 
that the studies themselves were grounded in the then-extant view that play is an 
ideal activity for children rather than one that is to be maligned and avoided as in 
previous times and other cultures (see Sutton-Smith and Kelly-Byrne 1984). Thus, 
with respect to games, “When Roberts and I called them models of power, we 
were becoming victims of our own and other males’ macho rhetoric […]” (Sutton-
Smith 1989, 13). Further, with respect to games, he claimed that

In their own strange ways, they embody tenderness in their affairs 
as well as toughness. They make players love each other, or love 
their coaches, or love their supporters, as much as they make them 
hate each other. What shall we call them: the games as models of 
toughness and tenderness? Perhaps games as models of Power and 
Pusillanimity? (13) 

CFR_2015_R.indb   18 11/22/15   10:41 AM



ChiCk  Games and Their rheToriCs

19

In his later writings, Sutton-Smith included his studies of games of strategy 
coauthored with Roberts under “play as rational power” (Sutton-Smith 1997:82). 
In tic-tac-toe, chess, or go, for example, each player assesses and anticipates the 
moves of the other with the winners doing so better than the losers. In a semi 
real-world context, military exercises, or “war games,” are at least as much about 
strategy as physical force. However, while Sutton-Smith (1997) allowed that 
research on play, including games, could involve more than one of the seven 
rhetorics, he did not delve deeply into the ways in which games of strategy relate 
to progress except as indicated in the quote above regarding children’s exposure 
to trickery, deception, and foul play. But learning about the unsavory aspects of 
life must be a form of progress lest one be constantly duped by others throughout 
life. Moreover, as Roberts and I showed in a 1986 study of the play of pool in 
western Pennsylvania barrooms, even in a game that would be classified as one 
of physical skill in the Roberts et al. (1959) scheme, the importance of strategy 
increases as expertise increases (Chick and Roberts 1986). Similarly, Roberts 
often claimed that players who treated poker as a game of chance were doomed 
when facing others who regarded it as a game of strategy. So, the nature of 
games themselves changes for players as their expertise increases. Learning about 
strategy and how to use it certainly seems to be adaptive even if it may not fit our 
everyday notion of progress being something positive and good.

Finally, the studies of games of chance by Roberts and Sutton-Smith (1962; 
1966) fall squarely within the rhetoric of fate although, interestingly, he cites 
neither in his chapter on the rhetoric of fate in The Ambiguity of Play. This is a 
curious omission, particularly since he and Roberts derived the notion of player 
styles that include both fortunist and failure in these papers. To a significant extent 
this may be because Sutton-Smith distanced himself from his cross-cultural studies 
of games in the 1960s with Roberts. In part, he understood that “the correlational 
nature of these power findings makes the meaning of the empirical relationships 
discovered quite uncertain” (Sutton-Smith 1997:82–83). Moreover, he recognized 
that “the widespread and easy diffusion of all kinds of games in modern life 
strongly suggest that additional principles may be required to understand the ways 
in which games as models come into being” (1997:82). This latter observation 
is well known to cross-cultural researchers, particularly experts such as Roberts, 
as “Galton’s Problem.” In 1889, Edward Tylor presented a paper to the Royal 
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland wherein he correlated 
data on forms of marriage and descent for 350 societies from the ethnographic 
literature. He interpreted the correlations as indicators of an evolutionary 
sequence. The statistician, Sir Francis Galton, who was in the audience, disagreed 
by pointing out that the correlations could be due to diffusion among societies 
or common descent rather than independent development. While this might 
reasonably be thought of as a problem for Tylor, it has come to be known as 
Galton’s Problem (Stocking 1968:175).

There are other difficulties with cross-cultural comparative research. The 
validity of the initial ethnographic descriptions must always be a concern as 
should both the validity and reliability of the codes developed from them. Missing 
data, which is very common in such research, is also a major problem. Fortunately, 

CFR_2015_R.indb   19 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Games and Their rheTorics chick 

20

Galton’s Problem and the problem of missing data have recently been addressed, 
if perhaps not absolutely solved, in a series of publications by Dow and Eff (2009) 
and others by incorporating autocorrelation routines in multiple regression analysis 
to address the former and multiple imputation of missing data for the latter. While 
these techniques have not yet been used in an effort to replicate the studies by 
Roberts and Sutton-Smith from the 1960s, doing so seems like a worthy task. 
Updated ratings for both child training variables and games are coded for the 
Standard Cross-Cultural Sample (SCCS) (Murdock and White 1969) and the Dow-
Eff software for conducting regression analyses of SCCS data is readily available.

Cross-cultural comparative research has the great advantage of being 
inexpensive to do. Many universities around the world have access to the 
electronic Human Relations Area Files (eHRAF), the cross-cultural database whose 
precursor Roberts and Sutton-Smith used in several of their studies and which has 
an excellent interface for keyword and other kinds of searches that greatly aid 
coding. This makes cross-cultural studies excellent vehicles for the initial testing 
of hypotheses. And, as indicated earlier in this essay, their cross-cultural studies 
led Roberts and Sutton-Smith to attempt to reproduce their findings in subsystem 
replications.

I believe that Sutton-Smith’s great and enduring contribution is not that he 
once-and-for-all defined play or that he determined its origin, what it is good 
for, and so on. Instead, he is the theorist most responsible for showing that how 
we think about play, and therefore the kinds of data we collect and the sorts of 
theories we produce, is heavily influenced by our presuppositions, values, and 
culture. He summarized this well in the following quote:

The point of view taken in this work, however, is that all of the 
rhetorics, whether modern or ancient, are based on or are simulacra of 
play forms, and all should be taken into account in any truly empirical 
examination of the character and functioning of play. (Sutton-Smith 
1997:53)

But, what of the series of studies that Sutton-Smith produced in collaboration 
with Roberts in the 1960s? Should they be disregarded, in terms of their empirical 
results, and simply be included as examples of the rhetorics from which they 
emerged? I, for one, think, as Sutton-Smith taught us, that understanding the 
theoretical context that gives birth to particular projects is of critical importance. 
As Sutton-Smith (1997) noted, this is similar to Kuhn’s (1970) observation that 
science is not as objective or cumulative as commonly believed. Indeed, one 
could think of Sutton-Smith’s “rhetorics” as quite similar to Kuhn’s “paradigms.” 
But I also think that the Roberts and Sutton-Smith studies of the 1960s can have a 
place in current thinking about play. Their field experimental studies of tic-tac-toe 
can still stand on their own and other research suggests that the trichotomization 
of power styles into potent, strategist, fortunist, along with combined forms, has 
predictive validity in terms of behavior in winning/losing at tennis (Widmeyer 
and Loy 1989), soccer (Roberts and Luxbacher 1982) and in automobile driving 
patterns (Roberts, Thompson, and Sutton-Smith 1966). Their cross-cultural studies 

CFR_2015_R.indb   20 11/22/15   10:41 AM



ChiCk  Games and Their rheToriCs

21

relating game types to child socialization variables could now be done with much 
greater confidence in the results. More recent cross-cultural research lends support 
to the physical skill-chance-strategy evolutionary sequence of game development 
(Chick 1998). Revisiting these studies seems warranted particularly when guided 
by knowledge and understanding of the rhetorics described by Sutton-Smith.

Conclusion: Brian Sutton-Smith and the Character of Play

The English word “play” has multiple meanings and is also commonly used as 
different forms of speech. These include as a noun (e.g., going to a play by 
Shakespeare, children’s play, a play on words), a verb (the children play hide-and-
seek, the setting sunlight played over the surface of the lake), an adjective (a play 
house), and various derivatives of these (e.g., gerunds, participles). Sutton-Smith’s 
early goal was to make some sort of sense of all of this. What is play? What is its 
origin? How did it evolve? What is it good for? I believe that he addressed these 
questions relatively directly in his early work on games but paused in his quest 
later in his career in order to look instead at how play has been theorized over the 
years. In his magnum opus, The Ambiguity of Play, Sutton-Smith (1997) sought “to 
understand the general character of play theory” (12), as noted above, rather than 
the character of play itself, largely because of the ambiguity of play as well as the 
ambiguities in play theories. Both missions have merit but Sutton-Smith was surely 
correct in demonstrating that, without knowing where we have been, it is difficult 
to know where we are going. His work has lit the path. It now seems reasonable 
to retrace some of his early steps along it.

In 1992, I delivered my presidential address to The Association for the Study of 
Play (TASP), a group that Sutton-Smith, along with Roberts and others, helped to 
establish in 1974. My title was “Play as Science and the Science of Play” and, in the 
presentation, I stated

Scientists play with ideas, or at least they ought to, and children learn 
though play, though they do not always learn what we want them to. 
… In my career to date I have had the opportunity to work with a 
number of bright and creative individuals and they all seem to share 
a player’s outlook on the world. Among my colleagues, John M. 
Roberts and Brian Sutton-Smith are the two most outstanding scholars 
with whom I have had the good fortune to work and to play. Each, 
a consummate player in his own way, brought or, in Brian’s case, 
continues to bring that worldview to their research. While my sample 
of two is small (even by interpretive standards), I judge that scientists 
must be players and, in their own way, children at play are scientists. 
(Chick 1993:99)

Sutton-Smith was one of the fortunate individuals who manage to retain a childlike 
curiosity as well as a playful personality well into old age. Because of this, he 
was able, based on his youth in New Zealand, his research as an adult, and his 
playful disposition, to examine the phenomenon of play as both an insider and 

CFR_2015_R.indb   21 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Games and Their rheTorics chick 

22

an external observer, or from emic and etic perspectives. It is difficult to imagine 
how a play theorist, researcher, and advocate could find himself in a better 
circumstance.

NOTES

1. The Fels Research Institute was founded in 1929 with support from the Fels 
Fund of Philadelphia. It housed a complex project known as the Fels Longitudinal 
Study which was devoted to research on the physical and psychological growth 
and maturation of children. Psychological data were no longer collected after 
1974 and, in 1977, the study became a part of Wright State University’s School of 
Medicine (Wright State University 2015).

WORKS CITED

Bacon, Margaret K., Herbert Barry III, and Irvin L. Child. 1955. Cross-Cultural 
Ratings of Certain Socialization Practices. Unpublished manuscript.

Bohannon, John. 2015. “Many Psychological Papers Fail Replication Test.” Science 
349 (6251):910–11.

Brown, Donald E. 1991. Human Universals. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University 
Press. 

Chick, Garry. 1993. “Play as Science and the Science of Play.” Play Theory & 
Research 1:89–101.

________. 1998. “Games in Culture Revisited: A Replication and Extension of 
Roberts, Arth, and Bush (1959).” Cross-Cultural Research 32:185–206.

________, ed. 1991. “Play & Culture: Studies in Honor of Brian Sutton-Smith.” Play 
& Culture 4 (2, 3, and 4).

Chick, Garry, and John M. Roberts. 1986. “Strategy and Competence: Changing 
Determinants of Game Outcomes.” In The Many Faces of Play, edited by 
Kendall Blanchard, 255–64. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

Child, Irvin L., Storn, Thomas, and Veroff, Joseph. 1958. “Achievement Themes 
in Folk Tales Related to Socialization Practice.” In Motives in Fantasy, 
Action, and Society, edited by John W. Atkinson, 479–92. Princeton, NJ: Van 
Nostrand.

Cooper, John M. 1949. “A Cross-Cultural Survey of South American Indian tribes: 
Games and Gambling.” Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143:503–24.

Culin, Stuart. 1891. “Street Games of Boys in Brooklyn, NY.” Journal of American 
Folklore 4 (14):221–37.

________. 1895. Korean Games: With Notes on the Corresponding Games of China 
and Japan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

________. 1899. “Hawaiian Games.” American Anthropologist 1:201–47.
________. 1903. “American Indian Games.” American Anthropologist 5:58–64.
________. 1975 [1907]. Games of the North American Indians. Vol. 24. North 

Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation.

CFR_2015_R.indb   22 11/22/15   10:41 AM



ChiCk  Games and Their rheToriCs

23

Dow, Malcolm M., and E. Anthon Eff. 2009. “Cultural Trait Transmission and 
Missing Data as Sources of Bias in Cross-Cultural Research: Explanations of 
Polygyny Re-examined.” Cross-Cultural Research 43:134–51.

Dunlap, Helen L. 1951. “Games, Sports, and Other Vigorous Recreational Activities 
and their Function in Samoan Culture.” Research Quarterly 22:298–311.

Firth, Raymond. 1930. “A Dart Match in Tikopia: A Study in the Sociology of 
Primitive Sport.” Oceania 1:64–96.

Heron, Alastair, and Harry C. Triandis, eds. 1981. Handbook of Cross-Cultural 
Psychology, Vol. 4: Developmental Psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: 
University of Chicago Press.

Lueschen, Gunther, ed. 1970. The Cross-Cultural Analysis of Sport and Games. 
Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.

Meckley, Alice M. 2015. “A Student’s Guide for Understanding Play through the 
Theories of Brian Sutton-Smith.” In The Handbook of the Study of Play, Vol. 
2, edited by James E. Johnson, Scott G. Eberle, Thomas S. Hendricks, and 
David Kuschner, 393–405. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Morgan, Lewis H. 1851. League of the Iroquois. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel Press.
Murdock, George P. 1945. “The Common Denominator of Culture.” In The Science 

of Man in the World Crisis, edited by Ralph Linton, 123–42. New York: 
Columbia University Press.

Pellegrini, Anthony D., ed. 1995. The Future of Play Theory: A Multidisciplinary 
Inquiry into the Contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany, NY: SUNY 
Press.

Raum, Otto F. 1953. “The Rolling Target (Hoop-and-Pole) Game in Africa.” African 
Studies 12:104–21.

Roberts, John M., Malcolm J. Arth, and Robert R. Bush. 1959. “Games in Culture.” 
American Anthropologist 61:597–605.

Roberts, John M., and Herbert Barry III. 1976. “Inculcated Traits and Game-Type 
Combinations: A Cross-Cultural View.” In The Humanistic and Mental Health 
Aspects of Sport, Exercise, and Recreation, edited by Timothy T. Craig, 5–11. 
Chicago, IL: American Medical Association.

Roberts, John M., Hans Hoffmann, and Brian Sutton-Smith. 1965. “Pattern and 
Competence: A Consideration of Tick Tack Toe.” El Palacio 72 (2):27–41.

Roberts, John M., and Joseph A. Luxbacher. 1982. “Offensive and Defensive 
Perspectives in Soccer.” In The Paradoxes of Play, edited by J. W. Loy, 225–
38. West Point, NY: Leisure Press.

Roberts, John M., and Brian Sutton-Smith. 1962. “Child Training and Game 
Involvement.” Ethnology 1:166–85.

________. 1966. “Cross-Cultural Correlates of Games of Chance.” Behavior Science 
Notes 1:131–44.

Roberts, John M., Brian Sutton-Smith, and Adam Kendon. 1963. “Strategy in Games 
and Folk Tales.” Journal of Social Psychology 61:185–99.

Roberts, John M., Wayne Thompson, and Brian Sutton-Smith. 1966. “Expressive 
Self-Testing in Driving.” Human Organization 25:54–63.

CFR_2015_R.indb   23 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Games and Their rheTorics chick 

24

Schmidt, Stefan. 2009. “Shall We Really Do It Again? The Powerful Concept 
of Replication is Neglected in the Social Sciences.” Review of General 
Psychology 13:90–100.

Stocking Jr., George W. 1968. “Edward Burnett Tylor.” In International 
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by David L. Sills and Robert K. 
Merton, 170–77. New York: Macmillan.

Stumpf, Florence, and Fredrick W. Cozens. 1947. “Some Aspects of the Role of 
Games, Sports, and Recreational Activities in the Culture of Modern Primitive 
Peoples: The New Zealand Maori.” Research Quarterly 18:198–218.

________. 1949. “Some Aspects of the Role of Games, Sports, and Recreational 
Activities in the Culture of Modern Primitive Peoples: The Fijians.” Research 
Quarterly 20:2–20.

Sutton-Smith, Brian. 1951a. “The Meeting of Maori and European Cultures and 
its Effects upon the Unorganized Games of Maori Children.” Journal of the 
Polynesian Society 60 (2/3):93–107.

________. 1951b. “New Zealand Variants of the Game—’Buck Buck’.” Folklore 
62:329–33.

________. 1953a. “Traditional Games of New Zealand Children.” Folklore 64:411–
23.

________. 1953b. “Marbles Are In: Some Observations on the ‘Seasonal’ Nature of 
Children’s Games in New Zealand.” Western Folklore 12 (3):186–93.

________. 1959. The Games of New Zealand Children. Berkeley: University of 
California Press.

________. 1968. “Games—Play—Daydreams.” Quest 10 (1):47–58.
________. 1971. “The Expressive Profile.” Journal of American Folklore 84:80–92.
________. 1973. Child Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century Croft.
________. 1989. “Games as Models of Power.” In The Content of Culture: Constants 

and Variants: Studies in Honor of John M. Roberts, edited by Ralph Bolton, 
3–18. New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files. 

________. 1993a. “Suggested Rhetorics in Adult Play Theories.” Journal of Play 
Theory & Research 1:102–16.

________. 1993b. “Play Rhetorics and Toy Rhetorics.” Journal of Play Theory & 
Research 1:239–50.

________. 1995. “Conclusion: The Persuasive Rhetorics of Play.” In The Future 
of Play Theory: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry into the Contributions of Brian 
Sutton-Smith, edited by Anthony D. Pellegrini, 275–95. Albany, NY: SUNY 
Press.

________. 1997. The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
________. 2008. “Play Theory: A Personal Journal and New Thoughts.” American 

Journal of Play 1:80–123.
Sutton-Smith, Brian, and, Diana Kelly-Byrne. 1984. “The idealization of play.” In 

Play in Animals and Humans, edited by Peter K. Smith, 305–21. London: 
Basil Blackwell.

Sutton-Smith, Brian, John M. Roberts, and Robert M. Kozelka. 1963. “Game 
Involvement in Adults.” Journal of Social Psychology 60:15–30.

CFR_2015_R.indb   24 11/22/15   10:41 AM



ChiCk  Games and Their rheToriCs

25

Sutton-Smith, Brian, and John M. Roberts. 1964. “Rubrics of Competitive Behavior.” 
Journal of Genetic Psychology 105:13–37.

________. 1967. “Studies of an Elementary Game of Strategy.” Genetic Psychology 
Monographs 75:3–42.

________. 1970. “The Cross-Cultural and Psychological Study of Games.” In The 
Cross-Cultural Analysis of Sport and Games, edited by Gunther Lueschen, 
100–8. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.

________. 1981. “Play, Games, and Sports.” In Handbook of Cross-Cultural 
Psychology, Vol. 4: Developmental Psychology, edited by Alastair Heron and 
Harry C. Triandis, 425–71. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Sutton-Smith, Brian, and Benjamin G Rosenberg. 1970. The Sibling. Oxford, U.K.: 
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

________. 1961. “Sixty Years of Historical Change in the Game Preferences of 
American Children.” Journal of American Folklore 74 (291):17–46.

Textor, Robert B. 1967. A Cross-Cultural Summary. New Haven, CT: Human 
Relations Area Files.

Tylor, Edward B. 1879. “On the Game of Patolli in Ancient Mexico, and its 
Probably Asiatic Origin.” Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great 
Britain and Ireland 8:116–31.

Widmeyer, W. Neil, and John W. Loy. 1989. “Dynamic Duos: An Analysis of the 
Relationship between Group Composition and Group Performance in 
Women’s Doubles Tennis Teams.” In The Content of Culture: Constants and 
Variants: Studies in Honor of John M. Roberts, edited by Ralph Bolton, 77–99. 
New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files.

Wright State University, Boonshoft School of Medicine 2015. “Fels Longitudinal 
Study History.” https://medicine.wright.edu/lifespan-health-research-center/
fels-longitudinal-study/history. Accessed 6 September 2015.

CFR_2015_R.indb   25 11/22/15   10:41 AM



CFR_2015_R.indb   26 11/22/15   10:41 AM



27

sutton-smith’s Five easy PieCes

jAy meChlinG

Brian Sutton-Smith was a sprite. I searched my vocabulary far and wide and settled 
on this word, this reference to lively, mythological creatures among the fairies and 
elves. I never met anyone like him.

There is a long line of anthropologists and folklorists who have studied 
children’s games and folklore, stretching back into the nineteenth century 
(Bronner 1988; Bronner 2011:196–247; McNeil 1988). Brian belongs in that 
scholarly history, of course, but he was also the sort of charismatic leader a 
scholarly field, especially an interdisciplinary one, needs to thrive. Brian was 
a founding father of the children’s folklore section of the American Folklore 
Society (Sutton-Smith 2008:96) in 1978, and by the time I joined The Association 
for the Anthropological Study of Play (then TAASP, now just TASP, dropping the 
narrower disciplinary designation) in 1978, I could see in both organizations how 
his energy and personality and intelligence was at the center of both groups. He 
was the force behind the children’s folklore section’s collaborating on a first-ever 
“sourcebook” for the study of children’s folklore (Sutton-Smith, Mechling, Johnson, 
and McMahon 1995). 

I first met Brian at the meeting of TAASP at the University of Notre Dame 
(Indiana) in 1978. I came from an interdisciplinary home of American Studies, 
where I had all my degrees and my academic employment, and on the 
recommendation of an American Studies friend, Bernard “Barney” Mergen, I 
decided to try a TAASP meeting and present my first paper based on my fresh 
fieldwork with a troop of Boy Scouts. Thanks to folklorist Henry Glassie, who was 
a fellow with me at the Yale National Humanities Institute in 1975-76, I had moved 
my Boy Scout research from historical, documentary evidence to observational, 
ethnographic evidence in the field—in this case, the summer encampment of a 
California Boy Scout troop high in the Sierra Nevada. By the time of the TAASP 
call for papers and then meeting, I was ready to present my first paper based on 
that work (Mechling 1980).

At that TAASP meeting, I saw first-hand Brian’s genuine love of and enthusiasm 
for the study of play, especially the play of children and adolescents. I am 
certain that my great affection for TAASP and for Brian was that first encounter, 
where he treated me like a colleague whose work was intensely interesting to 
him. There were no academic hierarchies or accompanying snobbism at those 
TAASP meetings, in part because everyone there was studying something thought 
“trivial” by disciplinary colleagues back home (see Brian’s “triviality barrier” 
essay, discussed below) and partly because the gathering was so interdisciplinary. 
Someone there could be a famous giant in his or her home discipline but at TAASP 
people were unlikely to know that. You were just Brian or Barney or Garry or Jay.

I think the best way to honor the memory of Brian Sutton-Smith and his work 
is to give people unfamiliar with his work an easy way to access his thinking on 
the play of children and adolescents. I have selected five key essays which, if 

CFR_2015_R.indb   27 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Sutton-Smith’S Five eaSy PieceS mechling

28

you read nothing else by Brian, would give you a good enough grasp of what he 
had to say to us and why he is so important to the study of the folk cultures of 
children and adolescents. Some familiar with Brian’s massive work might choose 
a different five; these are mine, essays I return to for ideas and a reminder of why 
we (I) pursue the study of children’s cultures. And, seriously, I see something new 
in these essays each time I reread them. What more could you ask of an essay?

I do not offer here summaries of each essay. Instead, I provide something 
of a reader’s guide that signals what I find to be important in the essay. I also 
show the connections between the essays. I refer often to my own work to testify 
to the fount of ideas I draw upon in each of these five essays. I take them in 
chronological order.

One final note. I have struggled with what to call Brian in this article—Sutton-
Smith or S-S for short or simply “Brian.” I have chosen “Brian,” which is probably 
too informal for an article somewhere between a personal reminiscence and a 
scholarly discussion of his ideas, but “Brian” seems right to me.

I. 

Brian Sutton-Smith. 1959. “A Formal Analysis of Game Meaning.”  
Western Folklore 18:13–24.

Brian began his study of children’s folklore with his dissertation, eventually 
published as A History of Children’s Play: New Zealand, 1840-1950 (1982). He had 
already published The Folkgames of Children in 1973. The 1959 “Formal Analysis” 
article reflects Brian’s dissertation work and his attempt to take a scientific 
approach (as a developmental psychologist) to the study of children’s games. 
Anthropologists and others had been collecting children’s games since the late 
nineteenth century, but Brian wanted to establish a more systematic, scientific, 
reproducible approach to describing and analyzing meanings of games. In part he 
wanted to elevate the legitimacy of the study of children’s games and children’s 
folklore in general (see the “Triviality Barrier” article, below), but he also realized 
that the scientific approach would require the comparative study of games across 
cultures to see the ways cultures shape children’s games and play.

To accomplish his goals and bring other scholars into the circle of those 
studying children’s games, Brian’s strategy in the “Formal Analysis” article is to 
describe, categorize, and analyze a single game called “Bar the Door” in New 
Zealand, but going by many names in the United States (perhaps “Red Rover” 
is the most familiar to American children). Brian describes the game briefly and 
then proceeds to analyze its play, proposing a system of “ludic analysis” based 
on five major game features: (1) the game challenge, (2) player participation, (3) 
player performance, (4) the spatial scene, and (5) the temporal structure. I will not 
reproduce his analysis here, but I do want to point to a few important points he 
introduces in his analysis.

First, Brian’s analysis of this “central person game” (where one player has 
the power over many others, a central feature of “chase and capture” games 
like tag) shows his interest in the ways children’s games reflect their lives in 

CFR_2015_R.indb   28 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Mechling Sutton-SMith’S Five eaSy PieceS

29

formal and informal institutions, in this case their lives in families and schools, 
where children have little power in relation to the “central persons” (parents 
and teachers) in charge of those institutions. The reader might think that Brian’s 
point is that games are “anticipatory socialization” for their adult roles, and there 
is some of that here, but Brian goes beyond what he would consider a narrowly 
reductionist, sociobiological understanding of the functions of play. Brian always 
attributed more agency to children than do most adults, including many scholars 
who study children’s lives. No, Brian’s linking the “game challenge” in central 
person games like “Bar the Door” to their lives in institutions is in the service of 
understanding how children experience the game. Even when describing and 
analyzing the formal structures of a game and the meanings of that structure, Brian 
never considers the analysis complete (or even adequate) without some effort to 
understand the experience of the game.

The second thing to notice in this article is Brian’s attention (this early, 1959) 
to the effects of the mass media on children’s games and folklore. He notes that 
the earlier animal symbolism and fabulous characters in the play of their games 
has been replaced (in the postwar era of television) with “modern symbolisms of 
the mass media” (p. 19). He later picks up this appropriation of mass media by 
children in his 1981 book, The Folkstories of Children, and in his commentary on 
ethnographic observations by his students in preschool and elementary school 
play settings (e.g., see the “Playfighting” article, below).

Third, Brian is ever-attentive to the similarities and differences between the 
sexes in children’s play and folklore. I discuss his unique book chapter, “The Play 
of Girls,” below, but in this 1959 article he observes that the increasing mixing of 
boy and girls on the playground has meant that girls are as likely as boys to play 
games like “Bar the Door” and that the girls sometimes invent “feminine variants” 
of the game (p. 19).

Fourth, Brian’s portrait of both boys and girls at play far from romanticizes 
children; in fact, he understands fully that children’s play is sometimes violent, 
mean, aggressive, obscene, and profane. Chasing and capture (tagging) games 
provide children with the perfect frame (Bateson 1972) for expressing aggression, 
sometimes real aggression but more often stylized aggression (p. 20). The folklore 
of male friendship groups depends on stylized aggression as the alternative to 
real aggression, and one of the paradoxes in this stylized aggression in games and 
play in boys’ folk groups (e.g., rough-and-tumble playfighting) is that the stylized 
aggression is a signal of closeness and trust. Similarly, Brian sees value in the 
stylized fear in the chasing and capture games. “In the game,” he writes, “fear may 
be experienced and yet it is not limitless. It exists within a controlled setting. The 
players control the fear, the fear does not control the players” (p. 20). In fact, the 
play frame of the chase and capture game provides a safe place and time for the 
child to experiment with power and control; the central person game, for example, 
temporarily gives power to even the less skilled player (p. 21).

In the 1960s Brian collaborated with anthropologist John Roberts on the cross-
cultural study of games, a collaboration Garry Chick discusses in this special 
issue. Using ethnographic evidence and at times the Human Relations Area File, 
Brian and Roberts formulated and tested with the available data hypotheses about 

CFR_2015_R.indb   29 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Sutton-Smith’S Five eaSy PieceS mechling

30

the ways games (e.g., games of chance, of skill, of strategy, and combinations 
of these) reflect the cultures represented in the ethnographies (e.g., Roberts and 
Sutton-Smith 1962). The connection is not simply anticipatory socialization, letting 
youth play at games that provide skills for their lives as adults in institutions, 
though there is some of that in the games. The relationship is more complicated. 
My own example from my work with a Boy Scout troop at their camp uses the 
Roberts and Sutton-Smith categories and thesis to understand some of the games 
the troop played, in particular their “Treasure Hunt” game and ensuing “Nugget 
Auction” at the evening campfire. In my analysis (Mechling 2001:254–57) I 
observed that, although the main message of the Boy Scout camp activities is the 
notion that hard work (skill plus strategy) yields success, a message in keeping 
with the ethos of capitalism, the game of Treasure Hunt and the Nugget Auction 
actually undermined that message by having luck play such a large role in both 
games. So although the games look like anticipatory socialization preparing the 
boys for a life in a capitalistic society, the games revealed (and disguised, the 
value of folklore) an ugly truth about capitalism. It is in folklore, like games, that 
young people can be schooled in the cultural contradictions of capitalism.

II.

Brian Sutton-Smith. 1970. “The Psychology of Childlore: The Triviality 
Barrier.” Western Folklore 29:1–8.

If folklorists studying the play of children and adolescents know any piece 
of writing by Brian, it is probably this 1970 essay, a plea for scholars to take 
seriously what he calls “childlore.” Advanced, industrialist societies like ours tend 
to value work foremost and play only for its temporary, restorative relief from 
work (as “recreation”). In such a society, Brian argues, “fun” (a main feature of 
play) is thought to be trivial. Work requires a “mature” attitude in contrast with 
the “immaturity” of play. People in an industrial, competitive culture like ours 
value instrumental behavior more than expressive behavior. And apparently so 
do scholars of play, argues Brian, in that those scholars tend to emphasize the 
functionalist interpretation of the instrumental behavior—play as anticipatory 
socialization for what skills the adult will need in that society, for example—rather 
than add to their analysis an understanding of the expressive pleasure of play. The 
child’s play is “autotelic,” self-sustaining, fun (p. 4). 

A developmental psychologist himself, Brian makes the surprising complaint 
that psychology has “little to offer” in understanding these expressive dimensions 
of play. The humanists are the scholars who understand and appreciate the 
joyful, expressive, autotelic dimensions of play (p. 4). For this reason, Brian 
insists that the study of play must be interdisciplinary. There is room for the 
developmentalists, of course, but the literary scholars, the historians, the art 
historians, and the humanistic social scientists provide necessary views. Actually, 
Brian sees two new (in 1970) areas of psychological research that promise an 
understanding of expressive behavior—research on creativity, and observational 

CFR_2015_R.indb   30 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Mechling Sutton-SMith’S Five eaSy PieceS

31

research (in Head Start and poverty programs) that temper the sociobiological 
enthusiasms of developmental psychology and show us that “there is no natural 
and universal language of lore for all children” (p. 5). Sociohistorical forces lead to 
different “expressive formal systems” in childlore (p. 5; see Goodwin 1991 for an 
example of the work by one of his students). 

To demonstrate the power of an interdisciplinary analysis of the particular 
influences of culture on childlore, Brian offers an example from the work he did 
with anthropologist John Roberts studying children’s games cross-culturally (see 
above). The example is the game of Tick Tack Toe (pp. 6–8). I shall not reproduce 
that discussion here but want to note simply that understanding the cultural 
variants in playing this seemingly simple game, including the gender differences, 
require perspectives from anthropology and history.

III.

Brian Sutton-Smith. 1979. “The Play of Girls.” In Women in Context: 
Becoming Female, ed. by C. B. Kopp and M. Kirkpatrick, 228–57. New York: 
Plenum.

We have seen in the first two articles discussed here that from his earliest work 
Brian was interested in gender differences in children’s play and childlore. This 
interest was not unusual among developmental psychologists, but their studies 
in controlled settings (e.g., schools and labs) spoke only to issues of human 
development. Brian was rare among the developmental psychologists in that 
he wanted to study children in natural settings, where children exercise a great 
deal more freedom and agency than they do in classrooms and labs. He wanted 
to understand children’s lives as much as possible as they were experiencing 
everyday life, not through the controlled lenses of adults who themselves 
projected so much upon the children. 

The scholarly and everyday cultural landscapes of the 1970s saw the rise of 
feminist theory and its challenge to the generalizations in psychology, history, 
and other disciplines based on the study of men’s lives. In psychology, perhaps 
the most influential book coming out of this era was Carol Gilligan’s In a 
Different Voice (1982), in which she sparred with Lawrence Kohlberg and his 
characterization of girls as “less mature” than boys in their moral reasoning. Not 
less mature, argued Gilligan, just different. The feminist research of the 1970s 
provided the ideas for the rise of interdisciplinary women’s studies courses and 
programs in universities.

The sociocultural landscape in the U.S. was changing, as well. The social 
movements of the 1960s challenged the patriarchy. The women’s movement 
and, after Stonewall in 1969, the gay rights movement challenged masculine, 
heteronormative understandings of gender and sexuality. Laws in cities, states, 
and at the federal level increasingly forbade discrimination based on gender, 
and although it failed to gain the necessary number of ratifications from state 
legislatures by the 1979 deadline, the proposed (in 1972) Equal Rights Amendment 

CFR_2015_R.indb   31 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Sutton-Smith’S Five eaSy PieceS mechling

32

(“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United 
States or by any State on account of sex”) to the Constitution came very close 
to passing. What did become federal law was Title IX of the U.S. Education 
Amendments of 1972, a law of significant relevance to the play of girls and young 
women. Title IX forbids discrimination in school activities on the basis of gender, 
thereby opening to girls and women equal opportunities in organized sports. In 
many ways Title IX is the most important, empowering social experiment in the 
past forty years, and Brian understood that. His 1979 book chapter was published 
in that new world.

In an effort to push the study of play beyond the textual approach and into 
the realm of context, Brian here proposes that “sports themselves can be used 
as the metaphor for preliminary thinking about the context of play,” and his 
communication approach to sports requires seeing the roles and performances of 
the “quadralogue”: coach, player, co-player, and spectators (p. 231). Brian then 
proceeds to review the current research on the play of girls using this “sportive 
theory of play.”

Here is what I find so significant about this chapter by Brian, apart from its 
being the first comprehensive survey of what we know about the play of girls 
(we need another). First, Brian shows how the arc of the history of girls’ play is 
toward bringing it closer to boys’ play. The games of girls shifted in the twentieth 
century from a focus on themes of status and marriage to themes of egalitarian 
competition (p. 233). Title IX accelerated that change in the 1970s, notes Brian, as 
girls and young women have access to team sports previously played exclusively 
by boys and men. Note that Brian added an “Epilogue” to this chapter just as 
he was preparing it for publication, an epilogue that discusses some research 
by one of his students on the advice manuals for professional women in the 
1970s, advice manuals that recognize that one of the goals of Title IX was to give 
girls and young women a socialization in play and games closely resembling 
the socialization experiences boys and young men bring to the professional, 
bureaucratic, patriarchal organizations the women were entering in increasing 
numbers in the 1970s (pp. 251–54). 

Second, Brian’s survey of girls’ play and games (always drawing comparisons 
with boys’ play and games) introduces ethnic differences as another source of 
variation. Brian’s chapter takes advantage of the new attention to ethnicity and 
social class in the 1960s and 1970s.

 Oddly missing from this chapter is the attention Brian pays elsewhere to the 
influences of the mass-media (especially television) on girls’ play and games. He 
and his graduate students at the University of Pennsylvania were paying attention 
to this influence at the same time (e.g., Sutton-Smith 1981).

It is important to recognize before leaving the discussion of this important 
chapter that Brian mentored a good many female graduate students and young 
female scholars, and they, in turn, have provided us with the close ethnography 
of children’s play, especially the play of games and girls, which only female 
researchers can accomplish. I have in mind scholars like Diana Kelly-Byrne 
(1989), Linda Hughes (1993; 1995), Marjorie Goodwin (1991; 2006), and Felicia R. 
McMahon (2007), among others.

CFR_2015_R.indb   32 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Mechling Sutton-SMith’S Five eaSy PieceS

33

IV.

Brian Sutton-Smith and Diana Kelly-Byrne. 1984. “The Masks of Play.” In 
The Masks of Play, ed. by Brian Sutton-Smith and Diana Kelly-Byrne, 184–
99. New York: Leisure Press.

I return to this essay more often than to any other by Sutton-Smith. A fan of 
Bateson’s work, I also recognize that Bateson’s idea of the play frame and its 
paradoxes betrays an uncharacteristically romantic view from someone whose 
scientific credentials and rhetoric do not really prepare the reader to see that 
romantic notion. But Sutton-Smith, also a fan of Bateson’s theory of play and 
fantasy, saw early the romantic streak in Bateson. Goffman’s appropriation in 
Frame Analysis (1974) of Bateson’s notion of frame recognizes what Bateson 
apparently did not—namely, that not all players are in the frame voluntarily, that 
players bring to the frame different power, and that some players can use the 
play frame for ulterior motives. Hence, Goffman argues that all social reality is 
constructed, maintained, and repaired using the same communication devices 
as one finds in the confidence game, a social constructionist view that I have 
embraced and used since reading Berger and Luckmann (1967) in the early 1970s. 
Sutton-Smith and Kelly-Byrne’s (hereafter S-S/K-B) way of making this point is to 
provide a typology and examples of the ways people mask other motives with the 
play frame, as when a sibling uses the “I was only playing” defense when using 
the play frame to hurt a sibling more than necessary in a game. 

I have found the idea of the masks of play, including the “deep play” Geertz 
writes about, endlessly useful in my writing (e.g., about deep play by warriors 
and veterans—see Mechling 2012; Wallis and Mechling, in press). On re-reading 
the essay for this occasion, though, I have seen some things that are there—some 
things that have always been there—that have slipped my mind. For instance, 
S-S/K-B take a gentle swipe at all the authors in the volume they edited, a volume 
of papers first delivered at a TAASP meeting. It seems to S-S/K-B that despite 
all the research on play presented at the conference and in this volume, the 
“most general strategy for not studying child play seems to be to write articles 
on their functions and pretty much to ignore the detailed moment by moment 
description of the experience itself as if we already know what that experience 
is” (1984:186). Ouch. That sentence summarizes beautifully and accusingly the 
purely functionalist approach to play, a critique S-S repeatedly made throughout 
his career. He did not deny that play has functions, but why (he asks here 
and elsewhere) stand so far away from play that the scholar cannot attempt to 
express the inexpressible, the pure joy and fun that the player experiences when 
entering that state of FLOW described by Csikszentmihalyi (1975)? Amidst all the 
analysis in The Ambiguity of Play (1997), Brian’s point in that book is that is that 
we need to understand that play is not merely instrumental, that it is expressive, 
consummatory, joyful, and fun. This is why Brian appreciated so much the 
research that somehow approached the child’s experience of play, not an easy 
task for adults trying to access the “experience” a child is having while playing.

CFR_2015_R.indb   33 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Sutton-Smith’S Five eaSy PieceS mechling

34

It may seem contradictory that, immediately after making the point that a 
functionalist analysis of play may be a necessary but not sufficient moment in 
understanding play, S-S/K-B begin their catalog of ways play masks motives and 
ways other frames mask play, a “function” of play. But S-S/K-B are alert to the 
pleasures of these masked activities, most of which boil down to the pleasure of 
exercising power in a situation. “Children would rather argue the game than play 
it. The joy is the power of control rather than the play” (1984:190). Note how 
between Brian’s earlier interest (with John Roberts) in the structures and functions 
of games and the 1984 “masks” essay, Brian has come to see more interesting 
the pleasures of power children experience in playing and arguing the game. 
The example S-S/K-B use in the section of this essay on “Masks for Power” is 
childhood initiation rites, a topic of great usefulness to me as I have explored folk 
initiations in Scouting and in fraternities and sports teams (Mechling 2008b; 2009; 
see also Bronner 2006; 2012). Usually the players in children’s folk initiations, both 
those being initiated and those doing the initiation, are enjoying the event, though 
a few of those doing the hazing or initiating may be using the ritual or play frame 
as a mask for other motives.

S-S/K-B recognize that a great deal of the power play in children’s and 
adolescents’ folk initiations puts forbidden parts of the body and taboo functions 
(urination, for example) at the center of the invented initiation, just as they are 
in much of children’s lore (Mechling 1986). Brian understood that children’s lore 
is profane and “dirty”; I think that is why he appreciated my first TAASP paper 
on the game of Poison Pit played by the Boys Scouts I studied, a game involving 
urine and references to menstruation (Mechling 1980; 2001). When Geertz (1983) 
outlined the qualities of “common sense,” a type of knowledge deeply implicated 
in the study of folk ideas and folklore, he added “earthy” after a list that includes 
“naturalness,” “practicalness,” and “immethodicalness.” “Earthiness” is Geertz’s 
(1983:93) polite term for transgressive, profane, obscene, and taboo. As far as 
Brian was concerned, if the scholar clings to the romantic view of the child and 
ignores the fact that children enjoy forbidden, obscene, profane, and cruel play, 
that scholar has no hope of understanding the child’s experience of play.

In my own work I have found very useful the S-S/K-B discussion of play as a 
“mask for danger,” recognizing the thrill and pleasure of risk-taking. They make 
room for what Geertz (1973) calls “deep play,” a phrase originated by Jeremy 
Bentham for play in which the stakes are so high (loss of fortune, health, or life) 
that the play is irrational from the utilitarian standpoint. S-S/K-B had their college 
students give accounts of their own experiences with dangerous, “deep play,” and 
the authors reproduce several examples (college students continue the patterns 
of adolescent play). Even without the irrational risk, “dark play” (with death, 
for example) carries pleasure. I see this in the sorts of vernacular photography 
(snapshots) by warriors (Mechling 2012) and in the accounts of dark play in 
warriors’ memoirs and fiction (Wallis and Mechling, in press).

S-S/K-B, near the end of this chapter, come back to their critique of the 
scholars of play, and their surprising turn is to accuse even Bateson of creating a 
metamask. Put briefly, they focus on Bateson’s point (in his “Theory of Play and 
Fantasy,” the foundational essay on play frames) that “the peculiarity of play … 

CFR_2015_R.indb   34 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Mechling Sutton-SMith’S Five eaSy PieceS

35

is that it is a mixture of primary and secondary process (S-S and K-B 1984:195; 
Bateson 1972:185). S-S/K-B fault Bateson for dwelling only on the secondary 
(conscious) process of play’s psychodynamics while neglecting the primary 
(unconscious) process:

Because his [Bateson’s] own concern was largely with communication 
and metacommunication, he has made it easier to talk about the logic 
of play than about its illogic. Unwittingly, he has contributed to the 
idealization and bowdlerization of play, which has been a part of the 
twentieth century’s “scientific” approach to play. (Sutton-Smith and 
Kelly-Byrne 1984:196)

The corrective prescribed by S-S/K-B is to bring to the analysis of play both 
“Bateson’s paradox” and “Freud’s disguise,” to see the ways play both is like a 
dream (the title of Bateson’s essay is “Toward a Theory of Play and Fantasy,” 
after all) and not like a dream; play both is about reality and not about reality (p. 
196). The authors propose that we who study play “combine the Freudian view of 
ambivalence with the Batesonian attitude to paradox” (p. 197), and they suggest 
the neologism play as paraguise to capture the “scientific unidealized study of 
play” they hope for.

V.

Sutton-Smith, B., J. Gerstmyer, and A. Meckley. 1988. “Playfighting as 
Folkplay Amongst Preschool Children.” Western Folklore 47 (3):161–76.

When teaching and writing about Bateson’s frame theory of play and fantasy, I 
have always found playfighting to be the best example of framed communication 
where the messages exchanged within the frame (ruled by the metamessage “this 
is play”) do not mean what they would mean outside the frame. Most recently, 
John Paul Wallis and I found in Bateson’s paradoxical playfighting frame the key 
to understanding why soldiers and Marines in combat zones engage in rough-and-
tumble (R&T) playfighting, a surprising example of deep play when played in an 
active combat zone (Wallis and Mechling, in press). As Brian and his co-authors 
note, playfighting has been of interest to scholars of play for a long time, but what 
Brian’s team of graduate students brings to the topic is access to Philadelphia 
preschools and the ability to record actual instances of playfighting in “natural 
settings,” in context. 

Brian and his co-authors plunge into the 1980s debate about “war play” and 
whether children should be allowed to play with toy guns, a debate that rages 
today (Mechling 2008a). This is a topic of great concern to parents and teachers, 
sometimes to politicians, and to the general public. The death of a twelve-year-old 
boy, Tamir Rice, in Cleveland on March 2, 2015, shot dead almost instantly by a 
police officer arriving on the scene and taking the boy’s pellet gun for a real one, 
is only one among many tragedies and near-tragedies involving children’s play 

CFR_2015_R.indb   35 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Sutton-Smith’S Five eaSy PieceS mechling

36

with toy guns. So the debate Brian and his students entered in the 1980s is far 
from old and far from trivial.

What Brian’s team of graduate students can contribute to this debate is actual 
ethnographic description and analysis of children’s playfighting. Brian gave his 
student researchers two tasks in their fieldwork in the preschools: “to look for 
the relationships between playfighting and aggression and for any distinctions 
between them, and to look for the influences of television and of the teachers 
upon the children’s play” (p. 164). With this assignment, the researchers worked in 
nine preschools, taking notes on the play of two hundred children aged three to 
five years. 

As in my discussion of the first four “easy pieces,” I shall not summarize the 
findings here except to say what I find so useful in the article for my own work. 
First, boys’ drive to play with guns is almost impossible to extinguish, even in 
those schools (e.g., university-related schools and Quaker schools) where the anti-
gun, anti-wartoy policies were most strict (p. 169–70). The power of that drive 
obviously is something scholars and policymakers need to be able to understand.

Second, most of the aggression in these playfighting games is stylized 
aggression, often cloaked literally in the folk-contrived costumes suggesting 
superheroes and fantasy characters the children observe on television and in 
movies (p. 168). While the authors do not explicitly make the points I draw 
from this observation, I want to make the connections here. I concur with Jones 
(2002) that children need early experience with stylized aggression, especially as 
an alternative to real aggression. In fact, Brian’s students discovered cases where 
the children actually controlled and contained the real aggression of a player by 
making him abide by the rules of the fantasy play and stylized aggression (p. 174). 

Third, and still on this topic of stylized aggression, the researchers found what 
was to them a surprising degree of folk-imposed sex segregation, and it was 
primarily (by far) the boys who participated in the playfighting (p. 171). Looking 
back at Brian’s “The Play of Girls” and his brief discussion of the changes wrought 
by Title IX, one wonders where and how girls and young women acquire the skills 
of stylized aggression they will need to perform in organizational cultures that still 
resemble the culture of the male friendship group as honed on playing field.

Fourth, I value the ethnographic confirmation in this work that television 
programs aimed at kids clearly influence the playfighting. And the fieldwork 
observations should put to rest (but they won’t—this is a resistant belief) adults’ 
worried view that aggression and violence in children’s television programs results 
in real violence and aggression in children. What the ethnographic evidence shows 
is what I found to be true in the Boy Scout troop I studied, namely, that children 
and youth appropriate from mass-mediated, popular culture those symbols and 
narrative themes they find useful in their own folk cultures, their own folkplay. Put 
differently, those adults who still believe in the direct influence of popular culture 
on children fail to appreciate the true agency of children and youth. And the 
only way to appreciate fully that agency is to observe carefully and for prolonged 
periods of time the actual ways children play. 

CFR_2015_R.indb   36 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Mechling Sutton-SMith’S Five eaSy PieceS

37

Conclusion

The most recent of the Sutton-Smith “Five Easy Pieces” I have recommended 
here was published in 1988, very nearly thirty years ago. Brian continued writing 
through those years, and luckily for us he wrote a substantial memoir about his 
life and work in 2008 for the newly launched American Journal of Play. That 
memoir, “Play Theory: A Personal Journey and New Thoughts” (2008), recounts 
the phases of his thinking about play and sketches his journey from naughty play 
in his New Zealand youth to the project he was working on in his last days, a 
book that was to be titled Play as Emotional Survival, ideas which he presented in 
his keynote address at a TASP Conference in 2007 at the Strong National Museum 
of Play (which holds the Sutton-Smith Papers). In that address Brian explained 
that (as the handout outline for his address puts it) the address and book would 
be “my response to my deconstruction of play theories without providing an 
alternative in The Ambiguity of Play, 1997.” What is clear from Brian’s lecture is 
that he was drawn more and more to a Darwinian explanation for the power and 
durability of the play instinct. 

Neuroscientist Antonio Damasio’s 2005 book, Descartes’s Error (see also 
Damasio 1999) gave Brian scientific support for his belief that within us is a 
dualism, a struggle between the “primary emotions” of fear, anger, happiness, and 
so on, all expressed in play one way or the other, and the “secondary emotions” 
(pride, envy, guilt, shame), which “act as basic play regulators from rules to 
referees” (keynote lecture abstract 2007). Play’s evolutionary role, argues Brian, 
is “to bond all of these opposites (a synergy) into this new form of behavior” 
(keynote lecture abstract 2007). In evolutionary terms, as animals evolved from 
the “reflexivity” of reptiles to the “reflectivity” of mammals, play emerges as a 
behavior that enables mammals “to balance these two adaptive systems [reflexivity 
and reflectivity] without choosing the wrong one on any given occasion” (keynote 
lecture abstract 2007). Play is “an alternative theatric synthesis of reflexive and 
reflective response systems (which is supported in neural terms by the interaction 
between amygdala and frontal lobes)” (keynote lecture handout 2007). In terms 
of my own research, for example, the stylized aggression in playfighting among 
male warriors in combat zones provides a “theatric synthesis” of the two adaptive 
systems, reflexivity and reflectivity, under stressful circumstances (Wallis and 
Mechling, in press). 

Brian did not live to complete this work, but he left us enough of a trail for us 
to follow him toward a theory of play that incorporates the most recent thinking in 
evolution and brain science. In the 2008 article he called this his “third theory of 
play” (the first being “play as a viability variable” and the second being “culturally 
relative play forms”) and he outlined the theory in terms of four “adaptive layers” 
(2008:113–17). It is up to us to see where Brian’s third theory of play leads us in 
understanding the play experience in children, adolescents, and adults.

In all of Brian’s work, then, from early to late, you can find the distinct 
perspective he began with, i.e., a commitment to understanding children’s play 
as experienced by the children, a firm confidence that children’s experiences 
can be studied scientifically without losing the magic of their play, a respect for 

CFR_2015_R.indb   37 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Sutton-Smith’S Five eaSy PieceS mechling

38

the agency of children, a refusal to romanticize the child, an understanding that 
children can be mean and obscene and profane, a commitment to championing 
children’s right to free play, and an insistence that functionalist analysis of play 
must be complemented by analysis that understands the autotelic nature of play.

Sadly, what has changed is the flow of ethnographic work directed by and 
inspired by Brian. It is difficult to see whether the decline in ethnographic studies 
of the folk cultures of children and youth is due to waning interest by scholars 
or to the cultural and legal difficulties of studying children in “natural settings” 
rather than in classrooms and laboratories, controlled settings subject to the 
governmental and institutional rules for studying “human subjects.” There are 
occasional bright spots, like Clark’s In a Younger Voice (2011), and Clark shares 
Brian’s views of how to study children (see also Clark 1995). In gatherings of 
folklorists and others who know the unique value of ethnographic study of 
children’s lives, though, scholars often exchange stories and laments about the 
difficulty of getting their university IRBs (Institutional Review Boards—those 
committees that approve research with human subjects) to even understand the 
nature of qualitative research on children in natural settings, much less approve 
the research. Usually staffed by natural scientists and social scientists who take 
seriously the word “scientist” in their field and only rarely staffed by the lone 
humanist or two, most IRBs see our fieldwork with children as unscientific and 
maybe dangerous. Indeed, another genre of stories shared by male folklorists 
who have attempted to study children in the natural settings of playgrounds and 
neighborhood streets and beaches is the “the time mothers on the playground 
called the police when I was trying to talk with their kids” story. Parents’ concerns 
are understandable, if overblown (see Best 1993), but a combination of the 
difficulty of getting a research project approved by the IRB and then, if approved, 
the difficulty of getting adults in those natural settings to understand and accept 
the research methods of fieldwork with children has meant that many folklorists 
find it much easier to abandon the ethnography of children’s lives altogether. This 
is a great loss.

Brian’s grand project, passed down to his students and to those like-minded 
colleagues who knew him, and the principles guiding his project are in danger 
of being extinguished. I do not have a solution to the IRB problem or to the 
problems in American culture that nurture fear for and over-protection of children 
(e.g., witness the recent debate over “free range children” parenting practices and 
the actual legal trouble for parents who let their kids roam free). We will always 
have our own children and grandchildren and nieces and nephews to study and 
write about, but that “sample” is limited and skewed. I wish, for example, that we 
had enough fieldwork based on the play of girls in formal and informal settings 
that someone will write an updated version of “The Play of Girls.”

Brian never accepted the ways adults (parents, teachers, coaches, politicians) 
project their fears onto children or the many ways adults try to contain and control 
the play of children. My wish is that this very personal review of five of the essays 
by Brian that I return to again and again will recruit readers to Brian’s “project,” 
that there are enough sprites or even sprites-in-training reading this that we will 

CFR_2015_R.indb   38 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Mechling Sutton-SMith’S Five eaSy PieceS

39

conspire somehow to continue Brian’s work, even against the bureaucratic and 
cultural forces against us. For the children.

WORKS CITED

Bateson, Gregory. 1972. “A Theory of Play and Fantasy.” In Steps to an Ecology of 
Mind, 177–93. New York: Ballantine.

Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: 
A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.

Best, Joel. 1993. Threatened Children: Rhetoric and Concern About Child Victims. 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 

Bronner, Simon J. 1988. American Children’s Folklore. Little Rock, AR: August 
House.

___________. 2006. Crossing the Line: Violence, Play, and Drama in Naval Equator 
Traditions. Amsterdam, NL: Amsterdam University Press.

________. 2011. Explaining Traditions: Folk Behavior in Modern Culture. 
Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

________. 2012. Campus Traditions: Folklore from the Old-Time College to the 
Modern Mega-University. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

Clark, Cindy Dell. 1995. Flights of Fancy, Leaps of Faith: Children’s Myths in 
Contemporary America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

________. 2011. In a Younger Voice: Doing Child-Centered Qualitative Research. 
New York: Oxford University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1975. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow 
in Work and Play. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Damasio, Antonio. 1999. The Feeling of What Happens. Boston: Houghton Mifflin 
Harcourt.

________. 2005. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New 
York: Penguin.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight.” In The 
Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays by Clifford Geertz, 412–53. New 
York: Basic Books. 

________. 1983. “Common Sense as a Cultural System.” In Local Knowledge: 
Further Essays in Interpretative Anthropology, 73–93. New York: Basic 
Books.

Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 
Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of 
Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goodwin, Marjorie Harness. 1991. He-Said-She-Said: Talk as Social Organization 
Among Black Children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

________. 2006. The Hidden Life of Girls: Games of Stance, Status, and Exclusion. 
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.

Hughes, Linda A. 1993. “‘You Have to do it with Style’: Girls’ Games and Girls’ 
Gaming.” In Feminist Theory and the Study of Folklore, edited by S. T. Hollis, 
L. Pershing, and M. J. Young, 130–48. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

CFR_2015_R.indb   39 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Sutton-Smith’S Five eaSy PieceS mechling

40

________. 1995. “Children’s Gaming.” In Children’s Folklore: A Sourcebook, edited 
by B. Sutton-Smith, J. Mechling, T. Johnson, and F, McMahon, 93–119. 
Logan: Utah State University Press.

Jones, Gerard. 2002. Killing Monsters: Why Children Need Fantasy, Super Heroes, 
and Make-Believe Violence. New York: Basic Books.

Kelly-Byrne, Diana. 1989. A Child’s Play Life: An Ethnographic Study. New York: 
Teacher’s College Press.

Kopp, Claire B., ed., with Martha Kirkpatrick. 1979. Becoming Female: Perspectives 
on Development. New York: Plenum Press

McMahon, Felicia R. 2007. Not Just Child’s Play: Emerging Tradition and the Lost 
Boys of Sudan. Oxford: University Press of Mississippi. 

McNeil, W. K. 1988. “Introduction.” In American Children’s Folklore, by Simon J. 
Bronner, 11–23. Little Rock, AR: August House Publishers. Annotated edition.

Mechling, Jay. 1980. “Sacred and Profane Play in the Boy Scouts of America.” In 
Play and Culture, edited by Helen B. Schwartzman, 206–13. West Point, NY: 
Leisure Press.

________. 1986. “Children’s Folklore.” In Folk Groups and Folklore Genres: An 
Introduction, edited by Elliott Oring, 91–120. Logan: Utah State University 
Press.

________. 2001. On My Honor: Boy Scouts and the Making of American Youth. 
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

________. 2008a. “Gun Play.” American Journal of Play 1 (2):192–209.
________. 2008b. “Paddling and the Repression of the Feminine in Male Hazing.” 

THYMOS: Journal of Boy Studies 2 (1):60–75.
________. 2009. “Is Hazing Play?” In Transactions at Play, edited by Cindy Dell 

Clark, 45–61. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
________. 2012. Soldier Snaps. In Warrior Ways: Explorations in Modern Military 

Folklore, edited by Eric A. Eliason and Tad Tuleja, 222–47. Logan: Utah State 
University Press.

Roberts, John M., and Brian Sutton-Smith. 1962. “Child Training and Game 
Involvement.” Ethnology 1 (2):166–85.

Sutton-Smith, Brian. 1973. The Folkgames of Children. Austin: University of Texas 
Press.

________. 1981. The Folkstories of Children. Philadelphia: University of 
Pennsylvania Press.

________. 1982. A History of Children’s Play: New Zealand, 1840-1950. 
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

________. 1997. The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
________. 2007. “Play as Emotional Survival: Keynote Address Abstract.” IPA-TASP 

Joint Annual Conference, April 27.
________. 2008. “Play Theory: A Personal Journey and New Thoughts.” American 

Journal of Play 1 (1):80–122.
Sutton-Smith, Brian, Jay Mechling, Thomas W. Johnson, and Felicia R. McMahon. 

1995. Children’s Folklore: A Sourcebook. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Wallis, John Paul, and Jay Mechling. In press. “Devil Dogs and Dog Piles.” Western 

Folklore 74 (3), forthcoming.

CFR_2015_R.indb   40 11/22/15   10:41 AM



41

inventinG the disCiPline while you break it all down: 
an essay in memory oF brian sutton-smith

AnnA beresin

After I stumbled across his 1986 book, Toys as Culture, in a bookstore in Boston, 
I moved to Philadelphia to study with Brian Sutton-Smith. Jointly appointed in the 
Department of Folklore and at the Graduate School of Education at the University 
of Pennsylvania, he ran the Interdisciplinary Study of Human Development 
program with a giddy seriousness that kept students at the edge of their seats. His 
reading lists there were the most varied I ever encountered, and this essay offers a 
miniature reading list in order to share the breadth of his genius.

Psychology, particularly Freudian psychology and cognitive psychology, was 
the base discipline in my independent studies with him. As admirers of D.W. 
Winnicott, Erik Erikson, and Jean Piaget, he had all of his students challenge 
psychology’s assumptions by reading ethnographies of Mead, Benedict, 
LeVine, and Whiting. For our children’s culture bible, we had Schwartzman’s 
Transformations: The Anthropology of Children’s Play, and with it, the folkloristic 
historical collections of Iona and Peter Opie, along with William Wells Newell’s 
paradoxes. Folklore and anthropology were his answers to the erroneous, 
wide brush strokes of psychology, the neatened, expurgated versions of actual 
childhoods, the boredom of the textbook approach to child development. We 
would share fart jokes. As important as reading widely was to him, so were 
his reminiscences of his own childhood. His favorite New Zealand recipe for 
guaranteed farting: fish and chips and raisins.

Trickery itself, to be found in the study of the festival, from Bakhtin to Falassi 
to Stallybrass and Whyte, emphasized to Brian that the core of play is dialogic, 
paradoxical, a “world turned upside down” (Stallybrass and White 1986). Bateson 
was our guide to meta-communication, Foucault our mirror to meta-historical 
analysis. Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983) introduced the very idea of the invention 
of tradition, Huizinga (1949) the magic frame of play, and Goffman (1959), the 
idea that as one plays within a frame, one plays the frame as well. The message: 
challenge assumptions, study real children and their folklore for counter narratives, 
ask who is being served by the adult perceptions of reality. Play with the form of 
research. Study animals; examine evolution. Keep an eye on the playground and 
on video games. They keep us honest.

One of Sutton-Smith’s own essays that deserves more attention than it has been 
given is the seminal “Games of Order and Disorder” (1972). He had described 
games as “models of power,” yet games were no simple copies of adult culture. 
Through his eyes we see play emerge as a methodology of inversion. And so 
he began to use inversion and dialogism as a way to break down the very field 
he was crafting. The game of academia was not just increased knowledge, but 
disordering the lot as you build it.

Challenging Huizinga, Sutton-Smith noted play is not always voluntary. 
Sometimes you play the game everyone else is playing, because you must, in 

CFR_2015_R.indb   41 11/22/15   10:41 AM



InventIng the DIscIplIne WhIle You Break It all DoWn: BeresIn

42

order to play at all. Answering Caillois, he demonstrated that game text in one 
culture could be in a totally different genre in another.

Dueling Piaget, he cautioned against pitting assimilation over accommodation. 
Piaget’s model did not account for destruction; it was too focused on a limited 
concept of progress. Hollering at educational catch phrases, he observed that the 
opposite of play is not work. He hated the line, “Play is the child’s work.” It is far 
more complicated than work, or not work. It is what children do. A child who does 
not play is a child who is ill. Play is more like dreaming, than work. Play is more 
like art or religion, a symbolic field of communication that makes life worthwhile 
and mysterious. He noted that play’s opposite is not work; it is depression. 
Examining the idea of play as progress, he stated that children are not “the future.” 
They are in their own time, and their time here and now deserves to be playful. 
We can say he built a discipline of play while challenging his own and everyone 
else’s assumptions. Play was “ambiguous” as was the very enterprise of knowledge 
building. To be human is to live in ambiguity, and adapt to new contexts.

Brian loved bad jokes, old songs, fast footwork, and children’s stories. There 
were worlds within worlds in children’s folk arts, and he wrote about things that 
others found trivial with the zeal of the art collector. His mission was to protect 
children’s right to be surreal, incorrect, and off-center, and to honor error as a 
path to thought, art, and vitality. For his best writing, see his 1961 novel, Smitty 
Does a Bunk, and learn more about his childhood adventures with his very real, 
very loved brother. The novel centers around the adventures of brothers Brin 
and Smitty; Brian was clearly the younger Brin, his brother, the elder Smitty. 
Brin continuously sang and most of all wanted to be included, an observer of 
childhood within a children’s story.

Brian often recited excerpts of his Folkstories of Children (1981), rapturously 
quoting the children’s words when he wanted to demonstrate the skill children 
offer within their folklore. It seems fitting to take us here, words he collected from 
a four-year-old:

Once upon a time the once upon a time ate the once upon a time 
Which ate the once upon a time

And then the once upon a time which ate the once upon a time  
Ate the princess once upon a time with the king

And then the once upon a times died 
Then the end ate the end

the end
the end
then the end died
then the end died
then the end died
then the end died
and then the end the end the end died
the end with a the end
the end
the end (Sutton-Smith 1981:114)

CFR_2015_R.indb   42 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Beresin  inventing the Discipline While You Break it all DoWn:

43

Yet the end of a life is not the end of a life’s work. Brian particularly loved 
Rabelais, that 500 year-old writer of Gargantua and Pantagruel, or as I like to 
think of Rabelais, as the precursor of Jonathan Swift and the inventor of Cookie 
Monster. Although these words were written by French scholar Denis Saurat as an 
introduction to Rabelais’s Gargantua and Pantagruel; every word rings true for 
Brian (note the present tense):

As for his mind, there is none better: he can argue with the subtlest 
… On education, we still go to him; and his criticism of the education 
of his day still largely holds good against ours today. Against useless 
erudition he is splendid … His enthusiasm for science is still an 
inspiration … Look at the absurdity of things and of men: and do not 
take it seriously: laugh. (Saurat 1945:iv)

What Rabelais is for the adult carnival, Brian is for the festival of children’s folklore 
in all its complexity, in all its grotesquery, in all its variation. A privilege to have 
studied with him, to have dueled with his brain, I have come to think of Brian as 
the most intelligent, most well-read 11 year-old that ever lived. Like Rabelais, “As 
for his mind, there is none better.”

WORKS CITED

Bahktin, Mikhail M. 1968. Rabelais and His World. Translated by Helene Iswolsky. 
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballentine.
Benedict, Ruth. 1973. An Anthropologist at Work. New York: Avon.
Falassi, Alessandro. 1987. Time Out of Time: Essays on the Festival. Albuquerque: 

University of New Mexico Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 

(1972-1977). New York: Pantheon.
Freud, Sigmund. 1916. Wit and its Relation to the Unconscious. New York: Moffat, 

Yard, and Co.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York. 

Doubleday.
Hobsbawm, Eric and Terrance Ranger. 1983. The Invention of Tradition. 

Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
Huizinga, Johan. 1949. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture. 

London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
LeVine, Robert. 1973. Culture, Behavior, and Personality. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Mead, Margaret. 1953. Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological Study of Primitive 

Youth for Western Civilization. New York: Modern Library.
Newell, William Wells. 1884. Games and Songs of American Children. New York: 

Harper and Brothers.
Opie, Iona and Opie, Peter. 1967. The Lore and Language of School-Children. 

Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.

CFR_2015_R.indb   43 11/22/15   10:41 AM



InventIng the DIscIplIne WhIle You Break It all DoWn: BeresIn

44

________. 1969. Children’s Games in Street and Playground: Chasing, Catching, 
Seeking, Hunting, Racing, Dueling, Exerting, Daring, Guessing, Acting, 
Pretending. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.

Piaget, Jean. 1962. Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood. New York: W. W. 
Norton.

Saurat, Denis. 1945. “Introduction.” In Gargantua and Pantagruel by Francis 
Rabelais. London: John Westhouse.

Schwartzman, Helen. 1978. Transformations: The Anthropology of Children’s Play. 
New York: Plenum.

Stallybrass, Peter, and Allon White. 1986. The Politics and Poetics of Transgression. 
New York: Cornell University Press. 

Sutton-Smith, Brian. 1961. Smitty Does a Bunk. Wellington, NZ: Price Wilburn and 
Co.

________.1972. “Games of Order and Disorder.” Paper presented to the 
symposium on Forms of Symbolic Inversion at the American Anthropological 
Association, Toronto. 

________. 1977. “Dialectics of Play.” In Physical Activity and Human Well-Being, 
edited by Fernand Landry and William Andrew Robert Orban. Miami, FL: 
Symposia Specialists.

________. 1981. The Folkstories of Children. Philadelphia: University of 
Pennsylvania Press.

________. 1986. Toys as Culture. New York: Gardner Press.
________. 1997. The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Whiting, Beatrice Blyth, ed. 1963. Six Cultures: Studies of Child Rearing. New York: 

Wiley.
Winnicott, D.W. 1971. Playing and Reality. New York: Routledge.

CFR_2015_R.indb   44 11/22/15   10:41 AM



45

brian sutton-smith  
(1924-2015)

elizAbeth tuCker

Brian Sutton-Smith was not only a giant in the field of folklore studies and a 
pioneering scholar whose vision shaped the interdisciplinary study of play, but 
also an extremely kind, generous person who vividly remembered his own 
childhood in New Zealand through insightful works of fiction and vigorously 
defended children’s rights. His studies of the dynamics of play, games, storytelling, 
and other expressive forms have contributed immeasurably to the study of 
children’s folklore. As a scholar, colleague, and teacher, he has greatly enriched 
our field. 

Brian received New Zealand’s first Ph.D. in education in 1954 and traveled to 
the United States as a Fulbright scholar shortly afterwards. His teaching career 
began at Bowling Green State University (Ohio) and continued at Columbia 
University and the University of Pennsylvania. His legendary productivity includes 
more than fifty books, including The Ambiguity of Play (1997), and numerous 
articles. At the Strong Museum in Rochester, patrons can now learn about his work 
by visiting the Brian Sutton-Smith Library and Archives of Play.

I first met Brian when he gave a lecture about children’s storytelling, based on 
stories told by children aged two to ten that his team of students had collected in 
New York; these narratives became the foundation for his Folkstories of Children 
(1981). Before presenting his analysis, he read several stories told by two-year-
olds. With careful intonation and facial expressions, he read Alice’s story: 

The cat went on the cakies 
The cat went on the car 
The cookie was on my nose 
The cookie went on the fireman’s hat (1981:48).

What a fantastically mobile face he had! As he read Alice’s story, Brian became a 
convincing facsimile of a two-year-old storyteller: excited, repetitive, and poetic. 
He took young storytellers very seriously and found parallels between their stories 
and the stories of adults. In the preface to The Folkstories of Children he observes, 
“The caricature of children’s stories, as of adult soap operas, is not unlike the 
behavior of otherwise sophisticated persons caught in situations of stress and 
ambiguity” (1981:xi). One of his greatest gifts to children’s folklore studies has 
been his insistence on perceiving play and other expressive forms as vital human 
experiences, rather than experiences limited to the young.

Working closely with his students and colleagues, Brian helped folklorists and 
scholars in other fields learn about children’s culture. In 1977, at the request of Sue 
Samuelson, his first teaching assistant, he considered the need for more serious 
attention to children’s folklore. His solution to that problem was the formation 
of a Children’s Folklore Society (now the children’s folklore section) within the 

CFR_2015_R.indb   45 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Brian Sutton-Smith ElizaBEth tuckEr

46

American Folklore Society. I joined the steering committee for that new society 
and have participated in the society in a number of ways since then. We owe 
Brian sincere thanks for the Children’s Folklore Society and for Children’s Folklore 
Review, which has been published for more than thirty years.

In 1995, Children’s Folklore: A Source Book was published, co-edited by 
Brian and other children’s folklore scholars. This innovative volume discusses 
interrelated genres and takes a close look at the complexity and transmission of 
children’s folklore. While writing and revising the book’s chapter on narratives, 
I enjoyed receiving letters from Brian, who was always insightful and positive-
spirited. One of the book’s most valuable chapters is its last, titled “The Past in 
the Present: Theoretical Directions for Children’s Folklore.” I have often reread 
that chapter, which poses a provocative question: “how is it that our adult culture 
so typically suppresses the power-related aspects of children’s lives so clearly 
represented in this present document?” (McMahon and Sutton-Smith1995:308). This 
question and others raised by Brian’s work deserve careful consideration.

When Brian retired from the University of Pennsylvania, my husband and I 
were invited to attend his retirement party. On a bone-crackingly cold January day, 
we drove to Philadelphia and arrived just in time for the dinner. It warmed our 
hearts to find that each plate held a special gift: a toy! Mine was a miniature yellow 
tractor. I wish I still had that tractor, but I gave it to my son, and it disappeared 
in his tangle of miniature vehicles. I remember the tractor with pleasure and will 
always remember Brian, who was a remarkable scholar, a great teacher, and a true 
friend. His thoughtfulness, brilliance, and appreciation of play will stay with us as 
we move toward new forms and meanings of children’s folklore.

WORKS CITED

McMahon, Felicia R., and Brian Sutton-Smith. 1995. “The Past in the Present: 
Theoretical Directions for Children’s Folklore.” In Children’s Folklore: 
A Source Book edited by Brian Sutton-Smith, Jay Mechling, Thomas W. 
Johnson, and Felicia R. McMahon, 293–308. Logan: Utah State University 
Press.

Pellegrini, Anthony D. 1995. The Future of Play Theory: A Multidisciplinary Inquiry 
into the Contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Sutton-Smith, Brian. 1981. The Folkstories of Children. Philadelphia: University of 
Pennsylvania Press.

________. 2001. The Ambiguity of Play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sutton-Smith, Brian, Jay Mechling, Thomas W. Johnson, and Felicia R. McMahon, 

eds. 1995. Children’s Folklore: A Source Book. New York: Garland 
Publishing, Inc.

CFR_2015_R.indb   46 11/22/15   10:41 AM



47

“Children have their own world oF beinG”: 
an ethnoGraPhy oF Children’s aCtivities  

on the day oF saraswati Puja

semontee mitrA

Apart from Diwali1 and Durga Puja,2 few Hindu religious festivals are organized 
and celebrated publicly in the United States. Saraswati Puja is one such festival. 
Saraswati Puja, also known as Vasant Panchami, is a Hindu festival celebrated 
in early February to mark the onset of spring. On this day, Hindus, especially 
Bengalis,3 worship the goddess Saraswati, the Vedic goddess of knowledge and 
wisdom, music, arts, and science. She is also the companion of Lord Brahma 
who, with her knowledge and wisdom, created the universe. Bengalis consider 
participation in this puja4 compulsory for students, scholars, and creative artists. 
Therefore, Indian American Bengali parents force their children to participate in 
this festival, whereas they might be lax on other religious occasions.

As a participant-observer of this recent Indian festival in Central Pennsylvania, 
United States, I found that the cultural scene—the collective, communal 
celebration of Saraswati Puja—was not as simple as children of foreign-born 
parents following a transplanted tradition and gaining ethnic identity. On the 
contrary, I noticed that Indian American Bengali children typically indulged in 
activities such as games that are not traditionally part of the religious observance 
in India. Their interactions, both in and out of the social frame of a religious ritual, 
especially Saraswati Puja, reveal that in America the festive day has taken on the 
function of a children’s day of freedom from parental rules and ethnic regulations. 
Thus, the day of freedom raises the following critical questions: Why have 
these children’s agency and cultural practices emerged? How has it affected the 
performance of this festival in Central Pennsylvania?

This article analyzes the ways in which Indian American Bengali children 
separate their activities from the religious festival while defining the festival as an 
adult observation, and use the given space and religious-cultural setting to create 
their own world of fun and freedom. In addition, I analyze the various kinds of 
games and activities chosen by different age groups. These groups of Bengali 
children not only indulge in traditional games like singing games or chasing or 
tagging games, but also use technology to play games, for example different 
kinds of video games including strategy games. These children also participate in 
what I call “adventure tripping,” an act which involves no age or gender division 
unlike other games and activities. These trips originate with a mystery and a 
prolonged discussion about it, thereby encouraging every child to know the 
unknown, see the unseen, and enjoy the thrill of participation through a process 
that shares a structure and function very similar to legend tripping. I examine how 
all these games and activities reflect the changing meaning of religious festivals 
for second generation Indian American Bengali children and also their social and 
psychological developments through these games.

CFR_2015_R.indb   47 11/22/15   10:41 AM



“Children have Their Own wOrld Of Being” SemOnTee miTra

48

Saraswati Puja Setting: The Socio-Religious-Cultural Frame

Saraswati Puja is an indoor ritual that only recently has been organized by 
Bengali organizations in the United States. Sampriti, the Bengali Community 
of Central Pennsylvania, began organizing observances of the festival in 2012. 
Other organizations in metropolitan areas, including Philadelphia, New York 
City, Baltimore, have sponsored public celebrations only since the late twentieth 
century or early twenty-first century. From the viewpoint of central Pennsylvania 
organizers, Saraswati Puja serves two purposes: an occasion for socialization 
and handing down Bengali traditions to second-generation Indian Americans. In 
2013, the year I participated and observed the festival, it was organized in the 
community hall of West Enola Fire Company. The hall was divided into five parts: 
the stage (for cultural program), puja area (where the goddess was placed and 
also the space used for the sit-and-draw event), an audience zone, dining area, 
and storage area (to store extra tables and chairs). The storage area was separated 
from the rest of the space with a temporary partition wall. There was also a large 
kitchen where the members of the association, including men and women, cooked 
lunch and dinner. The children who took part in the dance program used another 
separate space beside the stage as a dressing room. Though the area was divided, 
the children occupied the entire space, except the kitchen. They were strictly 
forbidden, however, to get close to the deity or enter the storage area.

Thirty children attended the puja along with their parents. Most of them came 
in early with their parents in Indian ethnic dress: frocks, salwar kameez,5 and kurta 
pajamas.6

Age group Girls Boys Total

4 years 3 0 3

5-7 years 5 2 7

8-12 years 6 6 12

13-14 years 4 2 6

15-17 years 2 0 2

Total 20 10 30

Once inside the building, they were on their own because their parents were 
busy with the ritual. As fostering tradition is one of the main objectives behind 
organizing this puja, a cultural program was planned for the children, where they 
were the performers. They enthusiastically performed Indian dances and songs 
wearing traditional attire. A “sit-and-draw” event was also organized for children 
under the age of fourteen. They were given a sketch of goddess Saraswati that 
they had to fill in with colors. They shared the colors among themselves which 
gave rise to small clusters of children within the larger group of children. Their 
paintings were later exhibited on one of the walls of the hall, which became a 
topic of conversation among the children between the ages of six and nine. The 

CFR_2015_R.indb   48 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Semontee mitra “Children have their own world of Being”

49

sit-and-draw event was followed by a cultural program. It started with a short 
speech on the goddess Saraswati by Dr. Jeffrey Long, professor of Hinduism at 
Elizabethtown College (Pennsylvania), and member of Sampriti. During his speech, 
Dr. Long mentioned that on the day of Saraswati Puja, all academic and creative 
materials, including books, notebooks, laptops, pens and pencils, and musical 
instruments, should be left with the goddess for her blessings on those materials. 
He also explained that to excel the rest of the year, students should not study 
on the day of the puja. Children took the “no-study day” as the essence of this 
religious ritual.

Children in India, especially in West Bengal, also look forward to this day of 
Saraswati Puja as a “no-study day.” On this day, many children visit their schools 
and colleges in ethnic dresses (girls wear saree or salwar kameez and boys wear 
kurta pajama), as many schools and colleges (only in West Bengal) organize and 
host this puja. Children feel free from all restrictions as they dress up like adults, 
go to schools with their friends, have elaborate lunch provided by the schools, 
then visit friends’ houses or meet other friends and spend the whole day together. 
Many children, who have the puja at home, spend most of their time helping other 
female members in ritualistic arrangements. While talking to Bengali children in 
India, I learned that they fast (until the morning ritual is over), pray, and help their 
mothers to organize the puja at home because they feel that if they can prove 
their devotion to the goddess on this day, they can achieve success in the next 
academic year by putting in some hard work on their part. Apart from the religious 
fervor, Indian Bengali children also associate this day with freedom, but their 
freedom is quite different from that of Indian American Bengali children. Indian 
Bengali children have the freedom of space as they go to school and visit friends.7 
They usually do not indulge in any kind of games on that day, while Indian 
American Bengali children are accompanied by their parents and surrounded by 
adults all the time. However, Indian American Bengali children find out ways and 
indulge in activities that are not supervised by adults.

Given the license to organize themselves without parental supervision, 
Indian American Bengali children engaged in various games and activities either 
individually or in groups. Due to the variation of children’s ages, their games 
and activities also varied. They formed their own groups based on their ages. 
Though they were in a religious ritualistic environment, their engagement with the 
ritual was limited to what their parents asked them to do. By their actions, they 
understood the festival to be a children’s day of freedom that served as a stark 
contrast to their everyday lives as well as other occasions.

The use of games and activities within the frame of religious festival raises the 
question of how the meaning of play within the religious festive frames changes. 
Indeed, the establishment of the children’s frame within the adult controlled frame 
of religious festival has caused tensions at the border of children’s frame because 
adults, who surround these children, expect them to be a part of the festival so 
that they can hand down Indian tradition to them. But, as mentioned earlier, these 
children consider this day to be the day of their freedom. Therefore, in the context 
of Saraswati Puja, participating children are primarily redefining the meaning of 
not only the religious event, but also the space through their activities.8 

CFR_2015_R.indb   49 11/22/15   10:41 AM



“Children have Their Own wOrld Of Being” SemOnTee miTra

50

As a guide to ethnographic observation, I gave attention to the play frame 
formed by different groups of children. The idea of the play frame used as a 
strategy of boundary-maintenance in cultural situations in which tension exists 
between groups in hierarchical relation to one another points to folklore, such as 
the performance of games, as key evidence of addressing such tension in symbolic 
forms. According to folklorist Simon J. Bronner:

The act of framing captures a narrative as well as action that have a 
bearing on the perception of the event from the perspective of the 
participants and assorted viewers. Consequently, frames refer to the 
ways insiders and outsiders comprehend activity as a deep cognitive 
structure in addition to viewing, and strategizing, what occurs 
behaviorally. (2010:275)

In my observation, children framed activities that designated social boundaries by 
age, and in their games separated themselves from their parents. Although these 
children were involved in the religious rituals, they, through play frames, variously 
projected their interests as well as complexities in the scene as children with little 
or no experience of the homeland.

Children’s Activities

Right after finishing their dinner, the children went for a short trip into the storage 
area (behind the dining area separated by a temporary partition wall), which was 
strictly forbidden. Another children’s activity, which was common, was playing 
video games on portable devices. Children formed groups based on their ages to 
chat and play together all day long. Girls, up to the age of four (a group of three), 
were playing “Ring Around the Rosie” until lunch. Five to seven year olds formed 
a different group. This group had both boys and girls. They played a variety of 
games. Chasing and/or tagging games were the most favored. They were the most 
active group as they always engaged in some kind of running game. Children 
who were between eight and thirteen years old formed two groups, one of boys 
and the other of girls. Boys were either engaged in playing video games, spinning 
tops, fighting, or simply chatting throughout the day. The group of girls (ages eight 
to ten) was playing tag games, video games, chatting with one another, or most 
importantly was trying to eavesdrop on the conversation of their older sisters (ages 
twelve to thirteen). Boys and girls above thirteen years sat together and talked 
about various matters (school, news, fashion). Some of the boys (between twelve 
and fourteen) played with spinning tops. Boys between eight and twelve years 
also joined them. The two adolescent girls were seen mostly sitting and chatting.

A question raised by this observation is the continuity of the games played by 
children with Indian and American traditions. Beginning with William Wells Newell 
in the nineteenth century (1884), scholars believed that traditional games were 
on the verge of being extinct. In the twentieth century folklorists posited that in 
contrast to a view of children as passive vessels of static traditions, they actively 
adapted traditions and changed them and that is evident in my observations 

CFR_2015_R.indb   50 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Semontee mitra “Children have their own world of Being”

51

as children performed various games without a clear distinction to their ethnic 
sources (Bronner 1988:12). There are a variety of reasons for these changes. First, 
I noticed an interchange between girls’ and boys’ games. For instance, games like 
tag and spin tops have gained more favor with the girls and the boys with time 
(Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg 1961:21). Second, many games reflect trends in the 
larger surrounding American society. For example, violent and/or strategic video 
games were considered standard fare. Third, expanding technology has brought a 
major change in the tradition of games. The advent of television and the increasing 
preference for suburban living have influenced the children to separate from each 
other, and appear to have “conspired toward considerable desuetude in traditional 
children’s games” (Sutton-Smith 1961:37). Keeping these in mind, I will discuss all 
the games and activities that Indian American Bengali children participated in on 
the day of Saraswati Puja.

Singing Game

Children, especially girls, who were four years old, played “Ring Around the 
Rosie” all day long. The last line “We all fall down” was the most exciting part 
for them as they were trying new gestures for falling down every time. For 
example, sometimes they jumped before falling down, and sometimes they just sat 
down; after falling down on the floor, they stayed on the floor for a few minutes 
(sometimes rolling and sometimes simply lying) and then started playing the game 
afresh. But, every time, the falling down was accompanied by smiles and giggles.

Folklorist Leah Rachel Clara Yoffie (1947) observed that children at the end 
of the nineteenth century played more traditional games than at the time she 
collected lore in the 1920s, which follows Newell’s devolutionary view. But this 
does not hold true in my study. All the four-year-old children were engaged 
in playing the traditional singing game of “Ring Around the Rosie.”9 The game 
never disappeared, although the stigmatization of tradition as American society 
modernizes might contribute to a perception of its displacement (Bronner 2011:27–
36).

However, on the day of Saraswati Puja, this game was played in a highly 
collaborative manner and with mutual support and fussing about the rhyme, body 
movement, and falling down. Simon J. Bronner mentions that “rhymes can appear 
especially playful and colorful” and through the innocent enactment of children 
many “real-life issues are raised in rhyme” which the children are completely 
ignorant of (1988:51). This is so true for this singing game: 

Ring around the rosie, 
Pocket full of posies, 
Ashes! Ashes! 
We all fall down

This rhyme, according to some scholars like Peter and Iona Opie, refers to the 
Great Plague that happened in England in 1665 or with the Black Death in 
England that happened earlier in 1347-1350 (Opie 1985:221–22). A rosy rash was 

CFR_2015_R.indb   51 11/22/15   10:41 AM



“Children have Their Own wOrld Of Being” SemOnTee miTra

52

said to be a symptom of the plague and posies were the herbs that were carried 
for protection. The final “all fall down,” interpreted as death, actually happened 
as a result of the plague (Opie 1985:365). But the four year olds playing this were 
completely ignorant of this gruesome and somewhat dated popular interpretation.10 
More relevant for their purposes was the use of the rhyme as a recognizable 
American tradition to socially engage one another. The rhyme and the rhythm 
made them giggle and encouraged them to have different body movements. 
Bronner contends that the actions of standing and falling down became a creative 
performance, a celebration of youth identity for them (2011:199).

Chasing and Tagging Games

Children belonging to the most active age group, five and seven years old, formed 
a separate clique of their own. This group had both boys and girls. They played a 
variety of games. Before lunch, they were all engaged in chasing or tagging game. 
After lunch and the sit-and-draw event, they were engaged in looking at what 
others have painted. All their games included some physical activity, for example, 
a chasing game, or tagging game. It is significant to note here that the chase was 
led by the boys and followed by the girls. No girl was ever followed by any boy 
at any point of time of the game. This is a reflection of the patriarchal society 
that permeates contemporary American life. Even in Indian society, men are 
considered superior to women. A male member is usually the head of the family 
and is expected to earn the bread for the family; women are considered unequal 
and in need of care and protection by the male members. Women usually obey 
and follow their fathers and husbands when making major decisions. Perhaps 
witnessing this at home, these children have understood this to be the way of the 
world and that girls should follow boys, especially when they are playing a game 
that includes following somebody. 

Girls between eight and twelve also played tagging games (freeze tag), but 
they did not include the children younger to them in their game. They considered 
themselves to be grown-ups, so they did not even care to include “babies” (a 
term used by an informant to describe any younger children) in their group or 
games. In his book American Children’s Folklore, Simon J. Bronner claims that by 
indulging in “the non-singing variety of game that involves running and chasing,” 
children develop their thought processes as well as their bodies (1988:175). Brian 
Sutton-Smith and B.G. Rosenberg have similarly observed the crucial role that 
chasing games have played throughout in their study of sixty years of games. 
Arguing that the physical activity of running and chasing, “the theme of pursuit 
and capture,” is one of the basic motifs of the American culture (1961:25).11 
Therefore, it is evident that tag has historically been more popular among girls, 
but more recently has found equal favor among both boys and girls. Chasing and 
tagging games are quite popular among children because they can involve a large 
number of kids and can be played anywhere. 

These games are popular because in lieu of such games, children get the 
opportunity to explore new territories and interact with one another, especially 
boys with girls and vice versa (see Bronner 1988). The “it” figure in the game 

CFR_2015_R.indb   52 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Semontee mitra “Children have their own world of Being”

53

is significant because “it” is the one with authority. The children run away from 
“it” but they also invite the authority figure to chase them in order to bring them 
back to base or within their boundaries, which reflects parental guidance and 
control (see Schwartzman 1976). But the question that arises here is whether the 
“it” authority scale is more Indian in which there is a strong parent and expected 
obedience by the child or American in which there is a weak parent emphasizing 
independence by the child. I claim it is both for these children. Living in America, 
Indian American Bengali parents appreciate the importance of independence and 
value it, allowing their children to do things the way the children want to do. At 
the same time, because these parents grew up in Indian society, they cannot give 
away the authoritarian part of parenthood. Many of these children go to Sunday 
schools at the temple to take classes on Indian languages, classical dance, and 
music. These children also have to live up to their parents’ expectations when 
it comes to studies and choosing a career, which underscores my participants’ 
frequent display of independence and authority displayed throughout their games.

Spin Top, Video Games, and the Fight

Boys thirteen years and above, indulged in playing with spinning tops. Boys 
between eight and twelve years also joined them. Some of the girls of various age 
groups also joined them, but as viewers. The girls did not participate in the games. 
Spin top was played and enjoyed more as a competition and not as any other 
game.12

Video games, on the other hand, were played by almost everybody, regardless 
of age or gender. Not all of the children brought their gaming consoles, so they 
took turns at holding the electronic devices. It is significant to note here that 
although the boys were sharing the gaming devices, the girls had individual 
devices for themselves and so no sharing was required. A fight broke out all of 
a sudden between two boys (ages thirteen and nine) who were brothers. The 
reason behind the fight was not known initially, but later on an eight year old girl 
informed me that the fight and the eventual crying were strategies to attract the 
attention of the parents and get the device back by manipulating the authority of 
the elders.

Education and technology scholar Royal Van Horn notes that video games have 
won a major share of the children’s toy market and have become a major pastime 
for boys between eight and eighteen years of age (1999:173). Other researchers, 
including Simon Gottschalk (1995), claim that prolonged exposure to video games, 
especially violent video games, can result in aggressive behavior increasing feeling 
of anger or hostility, and a decrease in pro-social behavior. Along the same line, 
the non-electronic activities that I observed resulted in more socialization and less 
aggressive behaviors.

Although some scholars argue that video games are the major pastime activity 
of the boys, I claim that it occupies the girls as well and have been integrated into 
traditional play, considering the fact that video games played on electronic devices 
are distinguished from other folk activities by their proprietary individualistic 
characteristic. The games played by boys and girls may vary, but they are 

CFR_2015_R.indb   53 11/22/15   10:41 AM



“Children have Their Own wOrld Of Being” SemOnTee miTra

54

equally prevalent between both genders. The fight that broke out between the 
two brothers might be more than just a way for the younger brother to get the 
device from the older brother. I contend that such a behavior is a reflection of 
the aggression that happens due to prolonged exposure to violent/strategic video 
games (see Anderson and Bushman 2001). On the other hand, I noticed that the 
parents used time on the devices as “bribes” to their children. I witnessed parents 
making a deal with their children on the day of Saraswati Puja; for example, a 
mother told her son, “If you finish up your lunch quickly you will get to play 
video games, but you have to finish everything on your plate before that.” This 
indicates that video games have gained relevance in society which is more than 
just a pastime or a distraction; it has become coinage in a token economy for 
children and has become distinct from other forms of play that have more of a 
reference to social and traditional usage.

Chatting and Gossiping

Teenagers between thirteen and seventeen years of age were mostly engaged 
in chatting and gossiping. They were mostly talking about fashion, style, career 
paths they would like to take, teachers, rumors, and television shows. Children 
between eight and thirteen formed two separate groups: a boys’ group and girls’ 
group. While the activities of the boys’ group were the same, the girls’ group had 
a further division. The girls between eight and ten were not included in any of 
the discussions of the girls between eleven and thirteen. The former group (sub-
group) was not even allowed to be near or around the latter group of girls. But 
it was completely opposite with the boys. Boys talked and chatted either with 
other boys irrespective of age, or with girls of their own age or older. However, 
girls between eight and twelve were very interested in the discussions of their 
elder sisters who were young teenagers. As they were not allowed to be a part of 
the latter’s group, these young girls always tried to sit as close to their sisters as 
possible only to eavesdrop on their conversation. 

One of the major topics of discussion among the girls between eight and 
twelve was speculation about what their elder sisters were saying in their absence. 
Then one of them would comment, “I know they talk about nail art” or fashion or 
music videos. This not only reflects the curiosity that these young girls have, but 
also the impact of mass media on younger generation. Their world is no longer 
limited to dolls and fairy tales; they are more eager to grow up and do adult 
activities. 

The discussions about career path and objectives reflect that these young 
adolescents are highly encouraged by their parents for higher degrees and are 
thus, goal oriented. It also reflects their family’s economic status and the peaceful 
and happy relationship that they share with their parents (see Schwartzman 1976). 
Healthy relationships between parents and children promote the ability to make 
desirable choices and a greater ability to sustain those choices and achieve desired 
goals.

CFR_2015_R.indb   54 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Semontee mitra “Children have their own world of Being”

55

Adolescent Activities

One of the two young adolescent girls, whose parents are separated, spent her 
entire time either helping her mother or talking to her friend, another girl, in the 
puja. Both the girls took care of the children during their lunch and dinnertime. It 
was their responsibility, as all adults were busy with puja, to see what the children 
needed and they also helped young kids to finish up their food properly.

Psychologists Sandra L. Hofferth and John F. Sandberg argue that children living 
with a single parent tend to take household responsibility earlier than is done by 
children living with both parents (2001:297). They further argue that such children 
exhibit lesser degree of participation in any religious or secular activities. But my 
participants were very involved in religious as well as secular activities, in the 
sense that they were always eager to help their mother.

Adventure Trip

After finishing their dinner, the boys between eleven and fourteen decided to 
make a trip to the forbidden area of the hall, the storage unit. Both adolescent girls 
followed them. Girls between eleven and thirteen followed the adolescents and 
their sisters (eight to ten years old), always curious about their elder sisters, also 
followed them. When everybody went inside, the younger children also wanted 
to peep in to see what was going on inside. Thus all the children became a part 
of this adventure tripping. The children remained unnoticed even after their entry 
into the storage unit until there was a loud thud sound. Being a storage room, 
it had piles of tables and chairs, and somebody did something inside and a few 
chairs fell down to the ground. With this crash, their “trip” came to an end. While 
the younger kids were frightened, the older kids were embarrassed and tried to 
put the blame on the little children as it attracted the attention of their parents and 
adults came running to them to check if anybody was hurt. 

This mystery-shrouded adventure trip shares structural and functional aspects 
with legend trips that are well defined by folklore scholars Elizabeth Bird 
(2004), Bill Ellis (1989), and Patricia M. Meley (1991). Structurally, a legend trip 
is divided into three parts: the introduction where children/adolescents discuss 
about the place they are about to visit; the second part consists of the actual visit 
and discovering things unknown and unseen; the final part involves telling and 
retelling of the experiences at the site. For the children, I observed, the storage 
unit was a part of their discussion since morning due to three major reasons: first, 
it was a forbidden zone; second, they did not know what was inside it; third, they 
wanted to find for themselves what was inside it and why it was forbidden. The 
children successfully made the trip and later on, they discussed their experiences. 
Thus, like all other legend trips, this adventure trip also shares the tripartite 
structural pattern of legend tripping.

Referring to the functional aspects of legend tripping, Bill Ellis states that 
adolescent “legend trips” is in part a “ritual of rebellion” in which they escape the 
authoritarian world (1983:64). Patricia Meley (1991) claims that the function of 

CFR_2015_R.indb   55 11/22/15   10:41 AM



“Children have Their Own wOrld Of Being” SemOnTee miTra

56

legend tripping is “primarily recreation” (6), noting that such trips have a “social 
aspect” associated with them in which children do things together (11), and 
that “a ‘typical’ trip almost always includes a mixed-sex group of adolescents” 
(17). I identified all these characteristics closely associated with the adventure 
trip that the children under my observation made to the storage unit. The boys 
between eleven and fourteen actually initiated the trip, thereby portraying traits 
of “rebellion” against authority. Though it was an act of rebellion, Meley notes 
that through ritualization of the rebellion the children make their challenge to the 
adult authority manageable and comprehensible and so is not considered as a 
delinquent activity (1991:21); this stands true for my participant children as well. 
This trip also acted as an escape from boredom for the children as they spent 
their entire day within that demarcated indoor space and wanted to do something 
exciting that would rid them of their boredom. 

Interpretation of the Activities

Based on the discussions so far and limited by lack of comparative ethnographic 
material on Indian children’s activities in an American society, I have some general 
interpretation of the children’s activities I witnessed on the day of Saraswati Puja. 
The adult-enforced context of religious ritual limited children’s activities, but 
children, nonetheless, controlled the space within the hall by engaging in activities 
of their choosing. They could not play outdoors as they were not allowed to by 
their parents. But this does not mean that they did not play outdoor games. The 
entire space became their territory and through their various activities throughout 
the day they exercised their freedom and blurred the space boundary.

As the group of thirty children was a mixed group with children belonging to 
various ages and gender, I observed the following. The children formed several 
small groups based on their age and gender. The girls had separate groups based 
on their ages and inter-mixing of those groups was very limited. The younger girls 
were always either eager to emulate the activities of older girls or eavesdrop on 
their conversation. They also indulged in cooperative games like “Ring Around 
the Rosie” or simply sat and chatted. Unlike girls, the boys’ activities were not 
restricted to any specific age and they always tended to play in a larger group. The 
games that the boys played (spin top and video games) encouraged competition, 
so the more the number of competitors, the intense the competition grew. The 
boys’ games (especially video games) continued for a longer period of time, 
despite the fight, as compared to the girls. However, only chasing or tagging game 
involved both boys and girls.

There are several reasons behind such divisions and distinctions of the games 
played by the boys and the girls. The games the boys played continued longer 
because they could resolve their differences quickly and resume the game without 
having any ill feeling. For example, the two brothers, who fought for one video 
game, were playing together sharing the device once their mother resolved the 
fight. Thus boys quarrel all the time, but not at the cost of terminating the game. 
On the other hand, the girls could not continue with one game (tagging for 
example) for long because either they easily got bored or could not resolve the 

CFR_2015_R.indb   56 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Semontee mitra “Children have their own world of Being”

57

disputes that arose while playing. As the girls’ games did not give rise to disputes, 
they “gain[ed] little experience in the judicial process” (Lever 1976:483). Even 
when problems arose, they put very little effort to resolve quarrels or problems, 
and their games broke up abruptly.

The games and activities of the boys and the girls can also be interpreted in 
terms of social and psychological development. Boys’ reflected their organizational 
skills necessary to coordinate the activities in a group of large number and diverse 
people. Furthermore, their experience in controlled competitive situations tended 
to improve their interpersonal skills and their ability to handle competition and 
competitors. Girls, on the other hand, who either played in small groups or tried 
to emulate their sisters or adults in general (when discussing about fashion trends 
and beauty tips or helping their mothers or taking care of other kids), tended 
to develop social and emotional skills. They reflected more socially constructed 
feminine traits of nurturance, spontaneity, and cooperation. Restricting themselves 
age-wise and sharing secrets bound them together and made them emotionally 
dependent. Therefore, any breech or quarrel disrupted such bonds and they 
stopped playing altogether.

Conclusion

No matter where the children are or with whom they associate, they establish 
a boundary around themselves with play that can be called, as anthropologist 
Gregory Bateson (1999 [1972]) originally suggested, a “play frame.” The children 
separated their play from the religious festival and defined the festival as an adult 
observation, even though the festival allowed the play frame to form. The point 
of tension occurred when an altercation occurred and the adults had to intervene. 
It could have undermined the continuation of the frame but after its resolution, 
the frames resumed. In effect, the children redefined the meaning of space and 
religious ritual by their activities. The engagement with tradition by the children, 
even if different from the way the adults perceived it, allowed the children to 
sustain their separateness and freedom from regulation, even if temporarily. 
They redefined the space by blurring the boundary between indoor activities and 
outdoor activities. Though they were restricted indoors, their activities were not 
just indoors. They played outdoor games indoors. They also controlled the entire 
space by the end of the day through their adventure tripping.

Moreover, redefinition was not only restricted to space; the children gave a new 
meaning to the religious ritual itself. I claim this because the children I observed 
were in a tricky situation. They were surrounded by adults throughout the day 
who expected them to be a part of the religious festival so that Indian culture and 
tradition are handed down to them. But they used the religious framework in a 
different way to exercise their own will. Taking advantage of their busy parents 
(due to the religious ritual and social gathering), they used this day as the day of 
social freedom from ethnic filial piety. Or in other words, the children converted 
the meaning of the ritual to one challenging hierarchy. To a casual observer, this 
claim might seem paradoxical because the children appeared to be dressed more 
in line with Bengali tradition, but their “framing” activity served to communicate 

CFR_2015_R.indb   57 11/22/15   10:41 AM



“Children have Their Own wOrld Of Being” SemOnTee miTra

58

a different role to one another. My interview with them revealed that they did not 
get such an opportunity in other social gatherings mostly because they did not get 
so much of time together (as the social gatherings are restricted to one afternoon 
or evening unlike this one which was an all-day event). Another paradox is 
that this freedom is in a context of being more spatially restricted than in other 
religious festivals. Children in other religious and social gatherings are given a 
separate space where they can indulge in their activities.

Finally, the children not only did change the meaning of the ritual, but also 
reflected various behavioral traits passed on from one generation to another. 
It is perfectly clear how their games and activities portray their psychological 
development, their relationship with their parents and the society in general. The 
increasing popularity of this festival indicates more complexities as it portrays a 
celebration of Americanism for second generation Indian American, while first 
generation adults get to reflect upon their homeland roots.

NOTES

1. Diwali is a Hindu religious festival celebrated during autumn every year. It is 
popularly known as the “festival of lights” because it signifies the victory of light of 
darkness.

2. Durga Puja is a Bengali religious festival that celebrates the worship of 
goddess Durga. It is a five days’ festival celebrated with great pomp and show. 
This festival signifies the victory of good over evil.

3. Bengalis are an ethnic group of the Bengal region (now divided between 
West Bengal, India and Bangladesh). It is said that they have evolved from a 
mixture of Aryan race and Austro-Asiatic people. Their native language is Bengali 
and they are concentrated mostly in the states of West Bengal and Tripura of India 
and Bangladesh.

4. Any religious ritual performed by Hindus is called a “puja.”
5. Salwaar kameez is a traditional outfit worn by women all over India in 

different styles. It originated in south and central Asia. Salwaars are loose trousers 
with narrow ankles. Kameez is a knee-length top with varying neck patterns.

6. Kurta pajama is a traditional outfit worn by Indian men. Much like salwaar 
kameez, kurta pajamas are also worn in different styles. Kurta is a loose knee-
length shirt-like outfit worn by men. Pajama is a loose trouser.

7. Recently, this festival has taken the shape of Valentine’s Day in West Bengal 
as teenagers go out on dates all dressed up.

8. To study the whole cultural scene (Saraswati Puja celebration) I adopted 
certain methods. As a non-participant observant, I witnessed the children in all 
their activities and noted down the games they were playing. I tried to be as close 
to them as possible, but the moment they realized that an adult is around them, 
they changed the subject of discussion. This is truer for the teenage girls. Boys 
did not feel much bothered whenever I was around. The younger children had 
no time to sit and talk, so I observed their play. During my observation, I asked 
children about their activities that day. The younger children avoided answering, 
but children between eight and ten eagerly responded. Being unable to listen to 

CFR_2015_R.indb   58 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Semontee mitra “Children have their own world of Being”

59

the conversation of the teenage girls, one of my informants provided information 
on her elder sister’s conversation with her friends. I separately interviewed the 
adolescent girls. The purpose of my interview, in general, was (1) to find out what 
role Saraswati Puja played in their lives (2) the difference from other holidays 
when they also get a chance to play and spend time with friends and (3) their 
rationale for choosing particular activities.

9. Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg (1961) have provided the rank of this game: 
“54th (1896), 41st (1898), 25th (1921), 89th (1959)” (24).

10. Many folklorists have reasonably argued that the nursery rhyme “Ring 
Around the Rosie” was not created because of the “Black Plague” that hit western 
Europe in 1347 and had killed nearly one third of its population by 1350. Though 
the rhyme has elements referring to the plague, yet the plague was not the reason 
for its creation. There are several other versions collected by Charlotte Sophia 
Burne (1883), William Wells Newell (1884), and Alice Gomme (1898), which do 
not indicate any connection with the plague. Additionally, this rhyme was first 
published in 1881 by Kate Greenaway (illustrator) in Mother Goose or The Old 
Nursery Rhymes; folklorists in favor of this argument disagree with the fact that 
children recited this rhyme continuously for over five centuries, yet no one felt the 
importance of mentioning it between 1347 and 1881.

11. They further claim that with few exceptions girls show higher ranking in 
these games between 1856 and 1959: girls ranked tag game 3rd in 1896, 1st in 
1921, and 3rd in 1959; for boys tag was 7th in 1896, 4th in 1921, and 2nd in 1959 
(Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg 1961:25).

12. In “Sixty Years of Historical Change” Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg (1961) 
mention that with time spin top has lost popularity among the boys; it ranked 12th 
in 1896, 10th in 1898, 15th in 1921, and 133rd in 1959 (27). They further state that 
girls have developed keen interest in such games and perhaps this is the reason 
for the decreasing interest of the boys in spin tops (21).

WORKS CITED

Anderson, Craig A., and Brad J. Bushman. 2001. “Effects of Violent Video 
Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, 
Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of 
the Scientific Literature.” Psychological Science 12 (5):353–59.

Bateson, Gregory. 1999 [1972]. Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays 
in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology. Chicago, IL: 
University of Chicago Press.

________. 2006. “A Theory of Play and Fantasy.” In The Game Design Reader: A 
Rules of Play Anthology, edited by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman, 314–28. 
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bronner, Simon J. 1988. American Children’s Folklore. Little Rock, AR: August 
House.

________. 2008-2009. “Fathers and Sons: Rethinking the Bar Mitzvah as an 
American Rite of Passage.” Children’s Folklore Review 31:7–34.

CFR_2015_R.indb   59 11/22/15   10:41 AM



“Children have Their Own wOrld Of Being” SemOnTee miTra

60

________. 2010. “Framing Folklore: An Introduction.” Western Folklore 69 
(3/4):275–97.

________. 2011. Explaining Traditions: Folk Behavior in Modern Culture. 
Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

Brunvand, Jan Harold. 2012. Encyclopedia of Urban Legends, Updated and 
Expanded Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Burne, Charlotte S., ed. 1883. Shropshire Folklore: A Sheaf of Gleanings. London: 
Trubner & Co.

Foster, Josephine C. 1930. “Play Activities of Children in the First Six Grades.” 
Child Development 1 (3):248–54.

Gomme, Alice B. 1898. A Dictionary of British Folk-Lore: The Traditional Games of 
England, Scotland, and Ireland (Vol. 1). London: David Nutt.

Gottschalk, Simon. 1995. “Videology: Video-Games as Postmodern Sites/Sights of 
Ideological Reproduction.” Symbolic Interaction 18 (1):1–18.

Greenaway, Kate. 1881. Mother Goose or the Old Nursery Rhymes. London and 
New York: Frederick Warne and Co.

Griffiths, Mark. 2005. “Video Games and Health.” BMJ: British Medical Journal 
331:122–23.

Hofferth, Sandra L. and John F. Sandberg. 2001. “How American Children Spend 
Their Time.” Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (2):295–308.

Horn, Royal V. 1999. “Violence and Video Games.” Technology 43:173–74.
Lever, Janet. 1976. “Sex Differences in the Games Children Play.” Social Problems 

23 (4):478–87.
Meley, Patricia M. 1991. “Adolescent Legend Trips as Teenage Cultural Response: A 

Study of Lore in Context.” Children’s Folklore Review 14 (1):5–24.
Newell, William W. 1884. Games and Songs of American Children. New York: 

Harper & Brothers Publishers.
Opie, Iona and Peter Opie. 1951. The Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes. 

Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
________. 1985. The Singing Game. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Schwartzman, Helen B. 1976. “The Anthropological Study of Children’s Play.” 

Annual Review of Anthropology 5:289–328.
Stutley, Margaret. 2006. Hindu Deities: A Mythological Dictionary with Illustrations. 

New Delhi, India: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd. 
Sutton-Smith, Brian and B. G. Rosenberg. 1961. “Sixty Years of Historical Change in 

the Game Preferences of American Children.” Journal of American Folklore 
74 (291):17–46.

Sutton-Smith, Brian. 1989. “Children’s Folk Games as Customs.” Western Folklore 
48 (1):33–42.

Yoffie, Leah Rachel Clara. 1947. “Three Generations of Children’s Singing Games in 
St. Louis.” Journal of American Folklore 60 (235):1–51.

CFR_2015_R.indb   60 11/22/15   10:41 AM



61

Children’s Folklore seCtion: 2014 annual meetinG

sAntA Fe, neW mexiCo, november 7, 2014

Jared Rife, president/convener, opened the meeting.

Attendance: Those in attendance were Trevor J. Blank (State University of New 
York at Potsdam), Monica Foote (Indiana University), Lisa Gabbert (Utah State), 
Spencer Green (Penn State University, Harrisburg), Sharrae M. Hayes (Michigan 
State University), John McDowell (Indiana University), Rivanna Miller (Center for 
Creativity in Education in Cultural Heritage), Priscilla Ord (McDaniel College), 
Jared Rife (Penn State University, Harrisburg), Kate Schramm (Indiana University), 
Libby Tucker (Binghamton University), and Simon Lichman (Center for Creativity 
in Education in Cultural Heritage).

Finances: Priscilla reported that as of September 1, the section had a balance 
of $4,788.00 in the general fund, and the endowed funds were as follows: Life 
membership, $1,442.00; Newell Prize Fund, $8,138.00; and Opie Prize Fund, 
$3,016.00 with the funds having increased at a rate of 3%.

Since the Stephen Fossler Company has been bought by Deluxe, the price of 
Aesop and Accolade seals have gone up from $.10/seal to almost $.12, so under 
new business we will need to decide if we should continue to charge the original 
prices and absorb the increase or raise the prices for the seals.

In the endowments we are good for nearly $12,600. If we did not have 
corporate or university sponsorship for the journal, we could probably handle 
it. At present, neither the Newell fund nor the Opie fund is actually used for the 
prizes, which are instead being charged against the general fund. 

Children’s Folklore Review: Trevor stated that we need to look for a source 
of funding; his university is not able to help out much. He is working to get 
partnerships between various campuses, and his university program has a grant 
program available for collaboration. One partnership he mentioned was with 
SUNY Press. It would count as part of the grant’s “network of excellence.” 

This opened up questions of partnering with university presses. Kate suggested 
that we contact Moira Marsh and Michael Foster regarding their relationship with 
a university press. There were also questions of ongoing support with shifts of 
editorial leadership. 

Trevor stated that the ideal situation allows journal to be independent, not 
beholden to anyone. He also did not want to see journal go completely digital. 

Libby mentioned that once the funding had been granted at Binghamton, it 
was easy to continue getting it, but Trevor said that SUNY Potsdam is in budget 
constraints; the likelihood of funding from it is unlikely. Libby said that the next 
journal is going to be great.

CFR_2015_R.indb   61 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Children’s Folklore seCtion: 2014 AnnuAl Meeting

62

For funding, Kate made an “unserious” suggestion that we have a Children’s 
Folklore Section Calendar. Considerable joking ensued, and Trevor suggested that 
a better idea would be to make a calendar that is children’s folklore specific. 

Trevor suggested the need to set up deadlines for submission to the review. 
There is also a need for a book review editor. There is currently a dearth of 
reviews.

Newell Prize: Semontee Mitra’s paper, “‘Children Have Their Own World of 
Being’: An Ethnography of Children’s Activities on the Day of Saraswati Puja,” will 
be published in the next issue of the Children’s Folklore Review. There was no 
prize awarded this year. Some wondered what we should do about this. It was 
suggested that we need to email Fernando Orejuela for students to submit a paper. 
We need to spread the word to graduate students’ organizations.

Opie Prize: It will be awarded next year. John McDowell and Libby Tucker are 
presently assembling a list.

Aesop Award Committee: There were questions about how big the committee 
should be. Could it be up to five people or should it max out at four? Both Kate 
and Spencer were added to the committee for the next year.

Communication: Concerning communication Jared said that we need to push to 
communicate using AFS central tools. We have accounts on Facebook and Twitter, 
but they only are used around AFS time. Both would be useful to send out calls 
and information.

New Convener Election: Jared described the many perks, as well as 
responsibilities, such as updating AFS website and getting section sponsored 
panels together. Priscilla nominated Kate, and all agreed. Kate is now the 
convener. 

New Business: Priscilla noted that Trevor is eligible for membership in the 
Council of Editors of Learned Journals (CELJ). The members meet at many, various 
conferences and know how to secure funding. His dues will be paid for by the 
section. The benefit is that our journal would then be displayed at all conferences 
where CELJ meets. He needs to join personally, and he will be reimbursed from 
the treasury. Chip Sullivan found it quite useful. 

Once again there was a suggestion for printing shorter papers in the Review 
with commentary, perhaps calling it “Children’s Folklore Notes.” Jay Mechling 
suggested this last year. It would be a means of presenting works in progress 
or ongoing research, what were good papers at AFS, etc. We can get papers 
from people on CFS sponsored panels. Another idea was to include a list 
of dissertations completed on the topics in the field. We could work also to 
incorporate people in other sections/fields who are doing work with children that 
may speak well here too. We need to outreach! 

CFR_2015_R.indb   62 11/22/15   10:41 AM



 Children’s Folklore seCtion: 2014 AnnuAl Meeting

63

On the topic of book reviews, it was suggested that we incorporate books, not 
specifically on children’s folklore, but also in accompanying fields. 

Irene Chagall could not be here, but we need to find a reviewer for the 
documentary video she has completed on international girls handclapping, Let’s 
Get the Rhythm! Spencer pointed out that we could review other media, exhibits, 
websites, etc. Trevor said that that would really emphasize the REVIEW aspect. 

Aesop Prize Seals: Priscilla stated again that the seal price has gone up and asked 
do we raise price for winning individuals and presses? The people who make 
foil seals of the quality that we have will not negotiate. It was suggested that we 
possibly phase in price increase. She also mentioned that with large orders we 
cover postage and handling. She sends letters to winning presses, plus the price 
list. 

Book Review Editor: Trevor asked how we want to get that up and running? 
Jared said that we will send out the request to membership. Lisa thought that it 
would take lots of one on one contact. 

Priscilla suggested that for next year we should ask that our section be on day 
that is NOT when the Folklore Fellows also meet. When it is, we automatically 
miss having Simon Bronner, Bill Ellis, Gary Alan Fine, John McDowell, and Jay 
Mechling in attendance, all of whom either are or have been members of the 
section.

Jared asked for a motion of adjournment. Kate moved to adjourn, and Spencer 
seconded.

Editor’s Note: My thanks to Kate Schramm and Priscilla A. Ord for generously 
transcribing and providing these 2014 CFS meeting notes for inclusion in this 
current issue of Children’s Folklore Review.

CFR_2015_R.indb   63 11/22/15   10:41 AM



65

notes and announCements

Newell Prize

The Children’s Folklore Section of the American Folklore Society annually offers 
the William Wells Newell Prize (which includes a cash award) for the best student 
essay on a topic in children’s folklore. Students must submit their own papers, and 
published papers are eligible. Instructors are asked to encourage students with 
eligible papers to enter the competition.

Papers must be double-spaced and submitted as a Word document. On the 
first page, include the author’s name, academic address, home address, telephone 
numbers, and e-mail address. Deadline for this coming year’s competition is 
September 30, 2016. Please submit papers electronically to Dr. Brant Ellsworth, 
brant.ellsworth@psu.edu.

Book Reviews

Children’s Folklore Review is seeking book review submissions for its next issue, 
to be published in December 2016. This is an excellent opportunity for graduate 
students interested in building their writing credentials and demonstrating breadth 
in folklore, literature, and childhood studies. Books are selected for review in 
Children’s Folklore Review according to their relevance to the field of children’s 
folklore and their year of publication (usually within the past three years). If you 
would like to request a book for review, please contact the book reviews editor, 
Brant Ellsworth (brant.ellsworth@psu.edu).

CFR_2015_R.indb   65 11/22/15   10:41 AM



67

Contributors

Anna Beresin is Professor of Liberal Arts at the University of the Arts in 
Philadelphia, and Co-Director of NEUARTS, Neighborhood Engagement at the 
University of the Arts. Her books include Recess Battles: Playing, Fighting, and 
Storytelling, and The Art of Play: Recess and the Practice of Invention. Brian Sutton-
Smith was her thesis advisor at the University of Pennsylvania, where she earned 
two doctorates; one in folklore, and one in the psychology of education. She 
enjoys bad puns.

Garry Chick is Professor Emeritus at the Pennsylvania State University and 
holds a Ph.D. in cultural anthropology. He is a past editor of the journals Leisure 
Sciences and Play & Culture and a past president of the Association for the 
Anthropological Study of Play and the Society for Cross-Cultural Research. His 
primary research interests are in expressive culture, including leisure and health, 
adult play and games, and research methods. He has conducted field research 
in Mexico, the northeastern United States, mainland China, and Taiwan, and has 
authored or coauthored more than 150 research articles and book chapters. Recent 
publications include “Leisure and Cultural Complexity” (Cross-Cultural Research 
45, 59–81, 2011), “Play and Mate Preference: Testing the Signal Theory of Adult 
Playfulness” (American Journal of Play 4, 407–40, 2012), and “Anthropology and 
the Study of Play” (In The Handbook of the Study of Play, edited by J. Johnson et 
al., 71–84, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2015).

Jay Mechling is Professor Emeritus of American Studies at the University of 
California, Davis. He publishes extensively in the field of the folklore of children 
and adolescents. He has served as President of the Children’s Section of the AFS, 
as President of The Association for the Study of Play, and as President of the 
Fellows of the American Folklore Society. He was awarded the Distinguished 
Teaching Award at UC Davis and is the recipient of The Davis Prize, the highest 
campus award for excellence in teaching and research.

Semontee Mitra is a Lecturer in the School of Humanities and a Ph.D. candidate 
in American Studies at Penn State University, Harrisburg. She specializes in the 
study of South Asian Indian Americans with a focus on religion, immigration, 
folk culture, and gender. Her work has appeared in Puralokbarta, a regional folk 
journal in India and will soon appear in Children’s Folklore Review, a children’s 
folklore journal published by the Children’s Folklore Section of the American 
Folklore Society and also in American Myths, Legends, and Tall Tales: An 
Encyclopedia of American Folklore. She is an Associate Editor of Cultural Analysis, 
an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to investigate expressive and 
everyday culture, and co-convener of the Transnational Asia/Pacific Section of the 
American Folklore Society (AFS). She has won numerous awards for her research 

CFR_2015_R.indb   67 11/22/15   10:41 AM



Contributors

68

papers including the W.W. Newell Prize from the Children’s Folklore Section of 
the American Folklore Society (AFS), Jonathan T. Yeh Prize from the Transnational 
Asia/Pacific Section of the American Folklore Society (AFS), Gary Burns Graduate 
Student Award from the Midwest Popular Culture Association/American Culture 
Association (MPCA/ACA), Michael Schoenecke Travel Grant Award from the 
Popular Culture Association/American Culture Association (PCA/ACA), AFS Student 
Travel Stipend Award, and Research Stipend from American Studies Program at 
Penn State Harrisburg.

Elizabeth Tucker is Professor of English at Binghamton University and past 
president of the International Society for Contemporary Legend Research. She 
received her doctorate in folklore from Indiana University, where she developed 
specializations in children’s and adolescents’ folklore, folklore of the supernatural, 
and legends. She has written five books, Campus Legends: A Handbook (2005), 
Haunted Halls: Ghostlore of American College Campuses (2007), Children’s 
Folklore: A Handbook (2008), Haunted Southern Tier (2011), and New York State 
Folklife Reader: Diverse Voices (2013), and 70 articles.

CFR_2015_R.indb   68 11/22/15   10:41 AM




