Children's Folk Games

The desire to play is innate. And although some kinds of play seem particularly human, many animals--certainly mammals--play both alone and in company. Play crosses the boundaries between speakers of different vocal languages, between cultures, between the sexes, between ago groups, and even between species. Perhaps play, more even than music, is the universal language.

In many ways play is unlike all other activities. It is purely voluntary, indulged in for its own sake and not to promote survival of the individual or the species. It creates nothing tangible, although it does contribute to physical, social, and psychological growth. The goals and motives of playing creatures are part of the play itself; players, as long as they are playing are outside 'reality." Or perhaps more accurately, they are in their own separate reality, where the play is central and sometimes quite serious. But mostly it's fun.

Play is sometimes "explained" as simply a disguised means of teaching the young the ways of the world and fitting them for it. Wrestling with friends and siblings teaches fighting skills. Running and chasing improves lungs, heart, legs, and speed. Skipping stones across a lake bolsters judgment and coordination. All this may be true. Still, I like to think the Creator made some things--among them color, music, and play--for sheer pleasure.

Nevertheless, some play does fulfill practical functions, and it is impossible to say which is incidental to the other--the learning or the fun. Playing games seems to be particularly important in teaching and reinforcing knowledge of various kinds in both younger and older participants.

Games differ from simple play in three major ways. First, whereas play is noncompetitive, games involve competition between at least two players. There are, of course, games for loners, but players of games like solitaire usually "compete with" an invisible opponent, for instance "the Devil," or against a standard--say, the number of hits in a row or a previous personal record. In addition, since games are competitive, every game has a means of determining who wins and who loses. Thus two players batting a shuttlecock back and forth over a net may be 'just playing" to warm up, not to win, or they may be "playing a game" by keeping score. Finally, agreed-upon rules, implicit or explicit, figure prominently in games. Some forms of play also involve rules; children in particular are often fanatical about the "right" way to play "house" or "store" or "statues." But the competitive aspect of playing games and the potential for winning--both absent from simple play--make rule violations more serious and thus more liable to be punished than in other kinds of play.

Games in culture

Many games model activities from outside the play world. Boxing, wrestling, competitive shooting, and many other games of physical skill, for example, imitate fighting or hunting techniques. Games of strategy also may simulate hunting or war activities; among games of this ilk are back- gammon and chess. Games of chance have ties to divining--essentially a religious activity. For modern players, such connections are in many cases lost in antiquity, since the games frequently have survived the activities they mimic. But the games remain important for developing abstract thought, and they contribute to cognitive mapping and worldview formation.

Anthropologists have observed that games are nearly--but not entirely--universal, although not all cultures have all kinds of games. Those observations led to examinations of cross-cultural evidence that suggest a number of interesting correlations between games and other aspects of a culture. For instance, although it is not always true, there are usually positive correlations between the presence of games of strategy and a complex social structure. Similarly, games of chance are likely to coexist with belief in the possibility of supernatural or magical assistance. Even in modern industrial societies we see such belief made manifest when baseball pitchers pray on the mound during the World Series, or gamblers spit on their dice or talk to them "for luck."

Particular games do not always fall neatly into categories, but to make sense of masses of information, games researchers have devised a general classification system based on what John M. Roberts, Malcolm J. Arth, and Robert R. Bush call "distinctive patterns of play.' For instance, some games require physical ability, though they may also involve strategy and chance. One game of this type commonly played by American children is Kick the Can, which we used to play in the gloaming of many a summer evening.

In Kick the Can, a "home" is first established, ideally a can or other object that can be kicked easily, although a stationary object that can be tagged will do. One child is then chosen to be "It." While "It" counts out loud, usually to one hundred, the others hide. When the count is complete, "It" begins searching for the hiders, being careful not to stray too far from home and always keeping a sharp lookout for players "coming home." The object is to find each of the others, calling out the name of the found player, who is caught and must wait until all others are home. However, if a hidden player can avoid being spotted while hidden and can beat "It" home, that player kicks or tags the goal and calls "Olly olly ocean free!" or some other formula. "It" must then reset or touch home before resuming the search; in some versions, all hiders are then free to come home, and the game begins anew. The first player caught will be the next "It," but if all player reach home "free," the original "It" remains in that role unless the others are sympathetic enough to select a new "It."

Physical skill is clearly necessary to play Kick the Can successfully. As in most other games, however, physical skill along is insufficient. Players must also use strategy in selecting hiding places and judgment in deciding when and by what route to run for home. And, since it's always possible to trip or run into something, chance is also a factor. But without the physical ability to run, to hide, and to see, play is impossible.

Another category, according to this system, consists of games of strategy. Such games symbolize struggles that occur in real life, and Arnold Arnold has described their place in our lives succinctly: Strategic games are battles in fun and make-believe. They are nonetheless real. The limitations of rigidly enforced rules and evened-out odds make them aggressive rather than hostile pursuits. The consequences of winning or losing are harmless. And therein lies the difference between violence and permissible, survival-assuring aggression.

Like games of physical skill, many games of strategy simulate conflict situations, but here the emphasis is on tactics rather than brute force. In some strategic games, such as chess or checkers, chance is not a factor; the outcome depends on the skills of the two players. In other strategic games, however, chance does play a role. In poker, for instance, the "luck of the draw" is a factor for players and their opponents, and in backgammon the dice limit the possible moves. But, as in life, the player's skill in responding to chance factors is a critical element of play.

Chance or "luck" alone determines outcomes in games of chance, since no physical skill or strategy is required. The outcome is determined instead by guesses; by an independent apparatus like dice or a spun wheel or arrow; or by drawing a winner, such as the high card or the longest straw. The card game known as War is a game of chance commonly played by American children; despite its name, the game requires no strategy or skill beyond the ability to handle and read cards.

To play War, an entire standard deck of cards is dealt in equal parts to all players. Keeping the rest of the cards face down, each player turns over the top card and puts it in the center. The player with highest face-value card takes all cards in the center. In case of a tie, the players with the tied cards are "at war," and turn over the next cards in their hands until someone has a high card. The object of the game is to get all the cards. Players who lose all their cards are out of the game.

The varieties of games, game playing, and game participation throughout the world is astonishing. Most societies do have games and those that do also have games of physical skill. Games of strategy or games of chance, or both, exist in some but not all game-playing societies. And even in those societies, individual participation depends on a number of cultural factors that determine who plays--and who doesn't play--which games. Some societies allow nearly everyone to play most games; others are more restrictive. But all, even the most liberal, societies restrict game playing to some degree by age, sex, health, social status, or other factors.

Socialization and game playing

Cross-cultural studies involve cross referencing various characteristics of the societies in question and analyzing the correlations (or lack of correlations) among those characteristics statistically. In their work on games and child training, Roberts and Brain Sutton Smith looked at variables involved in child training in fifty-six societies around the world and at those societies involvement in games of physical skill, of physical skill and strategy, of strategy, and of chance. They found that certain types of games were associated with particular child-rearing practices and expectations.

Games of strategy were found to be linked to obedience training in some way. Complex societies, to keep themselves from chaos, demand that their members--some more than others--be obedient. And if some people must obey, others must direct or command. Children in such a society learn early that the ability to strategize is crucial to living successfully. When is the best time to ask for a new toy? Who to ask: Mom or Dad or Uncle Bill? How can hall monitors and late slips be circumvented at school? How can the crossing the street without losing friends? As in games of strategy, the point--in the play world and the real world--is to outsmart the opposition.

Games of chance are associated cross-culturally with training for responsibility. At first, this seems an unlikely pairing, but gambling (in the very broad sense) and responsibility, even at a young age, have economic elements in common. The routine chores assigned children often have economic value, and in cash economies, many children have allowances, paying jobs, and cash savings for which they are responsible. Likewise, games of chance are frequently played for useful prizes: money, a toy, a favor, or status. And since the prize may allow the winner to fulfill some responsibility without the work normally involved, the connection between responsibility training and gambling makes sense.

Games of physical skill are related to rewards for achieving, while games involving both physical skill and strategy are tied to anxiety or outright punishment for not achieving. Interestingly, societies that have games of strategy, chance, or both, and also have games of physical skill, often have conflicting values about achievement. People are expected to achieve and are demeaned for not doing so, but at the same time high achievers may be disapproved of or even punished for achieving, or for spending the time and effort they needed to do so. In children's terms, then, get good grades but don't be a nerd.

Children's games are primarily models of adult behavior, and the rewards and punishments for playing them relatively trivial--at least in the "real" adult world if not to the child who strikes out in the last inning of the neighborhood softball game. But the principles associated with child socialization and game playing are manifest in the phenomena and the rewards and punishments of the adult world as well. Inability to "play by the rules of the corporation may mean losing a promotion or even a job, but good strategy can result in fortune, power, and fame. Adults in modern industrial societies are expected to be responsible and work for a living, but a lucky lottery number can allow for responsible living--at least as measured by ability to pay!--without the drudgery. In their careers, people are expected to be good at what they do, to achieve and advance. But when they succeed they may be "punished" by gossip about how they did so. These are lessons offered in childhood, often in traditional games, and the success with which they are mastered then may have profound effects on adult life.

Children play different types of games at different ages. The games they play both reflect the values and conflicts of the society they are learning to live in and teach the attitudes and skills needed to live successfully: From about ages seven to twelve, children learn through their games to take risks, develop and use skills, and evaluate and manipulate opponents. As they grow older, their games become more complex, and children learn to judge the value of different ploys in different situations. Young children cannot participate in or learn from direct participation in full-blown cultural operations like government or business. Games provide the models from which they can learn.

Gender, social status and games

Despite great variations internationally in what is expected, demanded, or permitted in the behavior of boys and girls and men and women, there is some consistency cross-culturally in differences in social training for boys and girls. Those differences appear to be reflected in both the games that children of either sex prefer to play and those they are allowed or encouraged to play. Girls are generally taught and expected to be more obedient and responsible than are boys of the same age, while boys are more often encouraged to achieve and take risks.

In more conservative societies, the difference is quite conscious and acceptable. But even in ostensibly more egalitarian societies the distinction is made. A recent study on parental responses to children's high grades in mathematics found that Americans are likely to praise boys for "winning" the grade itself and girls for trying hard and completing the "job." That is, the boys were rewarded for being competitive achievers and girls for being responsible, cooperative workers.

The gender differences in child socialization practices and goals reveal boys and girls preferences for particular kinds of games. In societies where the lines between the sex roles are changing there is some blurring of the differences, although it is interesting that there is more movement of girls toward "boys" games and play--soccer, Little League baseball--than of boys toward traditionally female activities. That tendency reflects the higher value placed by society on those activities that have traditionally been considered male. Overall, the evidence supports the idea that girls prefer games of strategy, like Checkers, Twenty Questions or I Spy, and chance, such as Bingo, Musical Chairs, or Post Office. Boys, on the other hand, are more attracted to games of physical skill, like darts, tug of war, or racing, or of physical skill and strategy: marbles, wrestling, or various team oriented ball games. Based on relationships found cross-culturally between socialization and types of games played, this is what we should expect.

Games and other kind of folklore

Traditional or folk games are distinguished from other types of games primarily by method of transmission; like other forms of folklore, they are passed on through informal channels by word of mouth, demonstration, and participation within a cultural context. So even a commercial game like Parcheesi can be considered "folk" or traditional if a child learns to play from friends rather than by reading the instructions. And children do learn most of their games from other children their own age or slightly older and, more rarely, from adults.

Games are just one of a number of types of expressive behavior ranging from purely personal dreams and solitary play to such other fully cultural, learned behaviors as dance, music, riddles, jokes, dramas, poetry, and folktales. The types and complexity of these forms change according to the participant's age and often sex and social status. Such cultural forms express or model other behaviors, but they are some-how outside "reality." The act of playing a game that models warfare, or telling a folktale, that models marriage, although it may be taken quite seriously, is recognized by even the most ardent aficionado as less significant than the act it expresses.

The resemblance between games and other kinds of folklore is sometimes surprising. In Anglo-American tradition, for instance, where games of strategy are common, many folktales can be viewed as games. Jack used strategy (as well as physical skill and an element of magical chance) to defeat the giant. Many children's riddles offer on first hearing less possibility of "winning" with the right answer than do games of chance involving lucky spins or rolls. And many games incorporate other kinds of folklore like songs, dances, and even folkloric characters such as Anansi [see "Go Tell Aunt Nancy"].

Traditional games, like other forms of folk expression among children as among adults, are not quaint and curious remnants of bygone ages, but meaningful and vital behaviors. It is likely that some forms will change, particularly in the face of the technological revolution. But as the power of folklore to express and educate will remain vital, it is certain that children will continue to teach one another to play games and, through the games, to live life itself.