International Journal of Play

ISSN: 2159-4937 (Print) 2159-4953 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rijp20

What is the state of play?

Jaipaul L. Roopnarine

To cite this article: Jaipaul L. Roopnarine (2012) What is the state of play?, International Journal
of Play, 1:3, 228-230, DOI: 10.1080/21594937.2012.735452
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2012.735452

Published online: 07 Dec 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9348

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rijp20
International Journal of Play
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2012, 228 –230

What is the state of play?

Jaipaul L. Roopnarine∗

Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA

(Received 11 June 2012; final version received 1 September 2012)

For over two decades I have attempted to explain the cultural basis of children’s play in several
of my published papers. A consistent message is that a consideration of the cultural foundations
of play is necessary if we are to more fully understand the meaning of different play activities
for children’s intellectual and social development (see Roopnarine, 2011). Collectively, these
accounts are largely descriptive and provide evidence that parents hold different beliefs
about the value of play for childhood development and also that the rates at which children
engage in different modes of play vary considerably. The majority of this research has been
conducted in technologically developed societies. In this essay, I introduce cultural
constructs (e.g., parental ethnotheories, physical settings, practices) that have guided my
work on play and culture before proceeding to a discussion of parental beliefs about play
and parent –child play across cultures.

In all human societies observed to date, children engage in some type of play or play-like activi-
ties. Even in extremely difficult social and economic circumstances children seemingly play.
Further, I would venture to say that although accepted as universal, the expression of different
forms of play and their meanings are tied to the cultural beliefs and practices that are evident/
not so evident in specific ecological settings. Each cultural setting has specific ways of conveying
to children what social and cognitive skills are expected of them and play is but one medium
through which children may acquire these skills. In my own work, cultural practices, cultural
schemas or ethnotheories, and cultural settings have been central to conceptualizing and assessing
diverse aspects of childhood development (see review by Greenfield, Keller, Fuligni, & Maynard,
2003; Super & Harkness, 2002) and play (Roopnarine, 2011). The underlying social and cogni-
tive processes in different dimensions of culture and play are viewed as evolving/ever changing
and as being open to diverse interpretations. Other researchers have broken new ground by high-
lighting cultural variations in childhood developmental transitions. Parental decisions about when
children engage in household work and subsistence activities versus learning through play are
calibrated to socio-demographic factors and demands in the immediate environment (Chick,
2010; Kaplan & Bock, 2001).
Over the years, I have focused on two issues regarding parent – child play that may have rel-
evance for exploring cultural variations in play activities and childhood development: parental
ethnotheories about the benefit of play for childhood development and mother – child and
father – child play activities during the early childhood years. Interest in mothers’ and fathers’

∗
Email: [email protected]

ISSN 2159-4937 print/ISSN 2159-4953 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21594937.2012.735452
http://www.tandfonline.com
 International Journal of Play 229

ethnotheories about play has been guided by propositions within cultural psychology and psycho-
logical anthropology. Internal working models about the role of play in childhood development
can influence the structuring of social and cognitive experiences for children, and beliefs about the
benefits of play may moderate and/or mediate the influence of play activities on childhood devel-
opment. To this end, researchers have found extreme variations in beliefs about the benefit of play
for cognitive, social, and physical development in young children: from play as frivolous at one
end of the continuum (e.g., Mayan) to play as central to the development of social and cognitive
skills at the other end (e.g., middle-class European Americans in the United States). We have
found (Roopnarine & Jin, 2012) that beliefs about the cognitive benefits of play moderate the
relationship between time engaged in play and early academic skills in preschool-aged children
of Caribbean immigrants in the United States. The message here is that there are several variables
that may moderate and/or mediate the relationship between different play activities and child
development outcomes and that their pathways of influence may vary across cultural contexts.
Turning to my other area of interest, I have found observations of mother – child and father –
child social and cognitive engagement in diverse cultural settings to be useful in testing theoretical
propositions that are commonly accepted or are proposed to be universal. A case in point is
father – child rough play – presumed to have a hand in the development of attachment relation-
ships to fathers. Our observational work in Malaysia, India, Thailand, and Taiwan showed that
fathers in these cultures rarely, if ever, engage in rough play with infants and preschoolers
(e.g., Tulananda & Roopnarine, 2001). Qualitative studies on foraging groups (e.g., AKA of
the Central African Republic) have also indicated that rough play is uncommon during father
child social exchanges (Hewlett & McFarlan, 2010). More investigations into the nature of
parent – child play across cultures can better inform us about the primacy of socialization pro-
cesses that speak to universal patterns of behaviors.
There are three issues, I believe, that can potentially advance theory development and empiri-
cal investigations on children’s play across cultures. First, more emphasis needs to be placed on
building indigenous models of play and early development. Conceptual frameworks that emerge
from what is observed within the cultures themselves would help build consensus around shared
cultural practices and childhood development. Second, an expanded definition of play that
includes both framed and unframed activities would assist in uncovering the adaptive functions
of play – getting to the heart of play and enculturation. Finally, there is a need to delineate
links between play and the development of social, economic, cognitive and other skills necessary
for life within specific ecologies. At an intuitive level, I must admit that it seems obvious that play
has many cognitive and social properties and that engagement in them is of benefit to children.
Furthermore, adult-type activities (e.g., pretending to pound grain) are observed in the play of
children in different cultures, suggesting that there is an enculturation mechanism to play that
allows children to acquire everyday skills. However, further teasing out the associations
between play and cognitive and social development will require more sophisticated assessments,
analysis, and interpretation of play in different cultural niches.

Notes on contributor
Jaipaul L. Roopnarine is Jack Reilly Professor of Child and Family Studies at Syracuse University and a
Research Scientist at the Family Development and Children’s Research Centre at the University of the
West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago. His research interests include father-child relationships across cultures,
Caribbean families and childhood outcomes, early childhood education in international perspective,
children s play across cultures, and immigrant families and schooling in the US. He has published exten-
sively in the childhood development and early childhood education areas. He is the current Editor of the
journal Fathering.
230 J. L. Roopnarine

References
Chick, G. (2010). Play, work and learning. In D.F. Lancy, J. Bock, & S. Gaskins (Eds.), Anthropological
perspectives on learning in childhood (pp. 119 –143). New York: Rowan & Littlefield.
Greenfield, P.M., Keller, H., Fuligni, A., & Maynard, A. (2003). Cultural pathways through universal devel-
opment. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 461 –490.
Hewlett, B.S., & Mcfarlan, S.J. (2010). Fathers’ roles in hunter-gatherer and other small-scale societies. In
M.E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (pp. 413–434). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kaplan, H., & Bock, J. (2001). Fertility theory: The embodied capital theory of human life history evolution.
In N.J. Smelser & P.B. Bakes (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of the social and behavioral
sciences (pp. 5561–5568). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Roopnarine, J.L. (2010). Cultural variations in beliefs about play, parent-child play, and children’s play:
Meaning for childhood development. In A. Pellegrini (Ed.), The Oxford of the development of play
(pp. 19 –37). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roopnarine, J.L., & Jin, B. (2012). Indo Caribbean immigrant mothers’ and fathers’ beliefs about play: Do
they moderate the relationship between preschoolers’ time in play and early academic performance?
American Journal of Play, 4, 441 –463.
Super, C., & Harkness, S. (2002). Culture structures the environment for development. Human Development,
45, 270 –274.
Tulananda, O., & Roopnarine, J.L. (2001). Mothers’ and fathers’ interactions with preschoolers in the home
in northern Thailand: Relationships to teachers’ assessments of children’s social skills. Journal of
Family Psychology, 15, 676– 687.