Framing play and the nature of signs

Goffman (1974) proposed frames as basic elements of a situation, which consist both existing structures and is made sense of by an individual’s subjective perspective. In short, frames are ways of organizing experiences. From a Piagetian perspective, one would suggest that an individual’s existing conceptual frames or schemas help her make sense any given situation. These frames then influence the individual’s next actions. From a Vygotskian perspective; an individual’s interpretations of contextual frames are based on social and cultural formations. These frames however only make sense in-so-far as the individual recognize the meaning of these frames and is able to not only act upon them but to communicate the meaning of this frame. The idea of frames can help us make sense of play; play as an inclusive intersubjective state or a mutual recognition of the situation. For play to be recognized between individuals, they have to have a shared experience; the actions undertaken by another person in this situation are understood within the specific play frame. It stands to reason that symbolic competence is insufficient without an understanding of how actions also require a response from another (Mead, 1967). Similarly, when participants engage in play, the recognition from the participants that they are playing is paramount. Play is determined by the participant(s). Moreover, symbolic competence allows children to understand social cues and is necessary for children to determine what constitutes play. In order for play to be recognized, children need to be able to understand signals, that is, to reflect upon their actions and recognize that actions undertaken are signals or symbolic representations (Bateson, 1972). I am still thinking about the nature of signs and symbols with respect to play and am hopeful to examine this further in the next few weeks.