Serenella Besio, Daniela Bulgarelli and V aska Stancheva-Popkostadinova (Eds. ) PLA Y DEVEL
OPMENT IN CHILDREN WITH DIS
ABILITIES
Serenella Besio, Daniela Bulgarelli
and Vaska Stancheva-Popkostadinova (Eds.)
PLAY DEVELOPMENT
IN CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES
www.degruyter.com ISBN 978-3-11-052211-2
Play is the most important activity and a right for children with disabilities; to be playful, it should be funny, intrinsically motivated, interactive, inclusive. It should overcome possible impairments, and it should be facilitated by environmental accomodations. Awareness and knowledge on the topic need to be increased and disseminated among families and professionals. This book has the ambition of laying the foundation for a new study fi eld.
Serenella Besio,
psychologist and speech therapist, is full Professor of Special Education at the University of Aosta Valley, Italy. Her research interests have been related to the disability fi eld of studies, in particular to the educational and assistive technologies and their role to support the independence of persons with disabilities. She is currently Chair of the EU COST Action “LUDI–Play for Children with Disabilities”.
DE GRUYTER
Daniela Bulgarelli
is Fellow Researcher at the University of Aosta Valley and Adjunct Professor of Observational Techniques at the University of Turin (Italy). Her main research interests concern the development of play and communicative competences from early infancy up to school age, both in typical and atypical populations, and the eff ect of early child care on children’s cognitive and linguistic outcomes.
Vaska Stancheva-Popkostadinova
is Associate Professor in Child Mental Health at South-West University “Neofi t Rilski”, Bulgaria. Her experience and publications are in the fi eld of child mental health: early intervention, mental health promotion, play in children with disabilities and prevention of child abuse and neglect. She has more than 70 publications in national and international journals.
Ser enel la Bes io , Daniela Bulg a re lli and V a sk a St anchev a-P o pkos tadino v a (E ds.) Pl ay dev elopment in childr en w ith di s a bilities
Ser
enel
la Be
s
io
, Daniela Bulg
a
re
lli
a
n
d
V
a
s
k
a
S
ta
n
c
h
e
v
a
-P
o
pkos
tadino
v
a
(E
d
s.)
Pl
ay
dev
elopment
in childr
en w
ith
di
s
a
bilities
IS BN 978-3-11-0 52211-2 e-IS BN (PDF) 978-3-11-0 52214-3 This work is lic ensed u nder the C reativ e C ommons Att ribution-NonC ommer cial-NoDer ivs 3.0 Lic ense. For det ails g o t o htt p:/ /c re ati v e c ommons.or g/lic enses/b y -nc -nd/3.0/. © 2017 Bes io , Bulg a re lli, St anchev a-P o pkos tadino v a P u b lis hed b y De Gruyt er Open Lt d, W a rs aw/Berlin P a rt of W a lt er de Gru yt er Gm bH, Berlin/Bo st on The boo k i s p u b lis hed w ith open ac c e s s at www .degru yt er .c om. Libr ar y of C ongr es s C a ta loging -in-P ub lic ation D a ta A C IP c a ta log r e c o rd for this boo k has been app lied for at the Librar y of C ongr ess. www .degru yt er open.c om C o v er il lust ration: Enz o Sanny (8 y e ar s), It aly C omp liment ar y c o p y, not f or s a le.
C
ont
ent
s
Acknowledg ement s XI Ser enel la Bes io , Daniela Bulg a re lli, and V a sk a St anchev a-P o pkos tadino v a Int roduction 1 Ser enel la Bes io 1 The Need f or Pl ay f or the Sa k e of Pl ay 9 1.1 Defining Pl ay 9 1.2 Play C h ar act eri s tic s 11 1.3 Fu n dament als of Play 14 1.4 Fu nctions of Play 29 1.5 Play and E ducation: the Need
f or Play f or the Sak e of Play 34 1.5.1 A Shor t Hi st oric al Ov er v iew 34 1.5.2 The Diffic ult R e
lationship Between Play
and E duc ation: C ont ro lling Pl ay 37 1.5.2.1 Play and Play -lik e Acti v ities 38 1.5.2.2 The R o le of Adults in Su ppor ting a C h ild’s Play 41 1.5.2.3 Need f or C larity: R o les, Termino log y, Acti v ities 43 1.5.2.4 Play f or the Sak e of Play 45 R e fe renc es 47 K eith T o wler 2 C h ildr en’s Right t o Pl ay , Whoev er They Ar e, Wher ev er They Ar e. The Pl ay Right s of C h ildr en and Y o u ng P eop le w ith Di s a bilities 53 2.1 The UNC RC 53 2.2 B arrier s, V o ic e, and Play Pr actic e 54 2.3 Ar ticle 31 and Gener al C omment No . 17 55 2.4 C onclus ion 57 R e fe renc es 57 Daniela Bulg a re lli and Nic o le Bianquin 3 C onc ept ua l R e v iew of Pl ay 58 3.1 Definition of Play 58 3.2 C lassific ations of Ty pes of Play 59 3.3 L UDI C lassific ation of Ty pe s of Play 64
3.4 Ty pe of Play: Ar eas of Dev elopment and C h ild’s Abilities 68 R e fe renc es 69 Nic o le Bianquin and Daniela Bulg a re lli 4 C onc ept ua l R e v iew of Di s a bilities 71 4.1 L UDI Definition of Di s ability 71 4.2 L UDI C a te g o ries of C h ild hood Di s abilities 73 4.3 Desc ription of the L UDI C a te g o ries of C h ild hood Di s abilities 80 4.3.1 Int el lect ual Di s abilities 81 4.3.2 He aring Impairments 82 4.3.3 V is ual Impairments 82 4.3.4 C ommu nic ation Di sor der s 83 4.3.5 Phy s ic a l Impairments 83 4.3.6 Auti sm Spect ru m Di sor der s 84 4.3.7 Multip le Di s abilities 85 R e fe renc es 86 Daniela Bulg a re lli and V a sk a St anchev a-P o pkos tadino v a 5 Pl ay in C h ildr en w ith Int el lect ua l Di s a bilities 88 5.1 Play in C h ildr en w ith ID 88 5.2 C ogniti v e Play 89 5.3 Soc ial Play 90 5.4 C onclus ion 91 R e fe renc es 91 Ann a Andr eev a, Piet ro C elo , Nic o le V ian 6 Pl ay in C h ildr en w ith He ar ing Impairment s 94 6.1 Play and Languag e Dev elopment in C h ildr en w ith He ar ing Imp airment s 94 6.2 Play between P a rents and C h ildr en w ith He ar ing Impairments 96 6.3 Pr et end Pl ay in C h ildr en w ith He aring Impairments 96 6.4 S y m b o lic Play in C h ildr en w ith He aring Impairments 97 6.5 Fr ee Play in C h ildr en w ith He aring Impairments 97 6.6 Soc ial Play in C h ildr en w ith He aring Impairments 98 6.7 C onclus ion 99 R e fe renc es 99
Mir a T z v etk o v a-Ar so v a and T a m a ra Z app at err a 7 Pl ay in C h ildr en w ith V is ua l Impairment s 102 7.1 Basic Issues on Play in C h ildr en with Visual Impairments 102 7. 2 St ra tegies f or C ompens ation of the Delay s and Difficulties in Play b y C h ildr en w ith V is ual Impairments 106 7.3 C onclus ion 107 R e fe renc es 108 Nat alia Amelin a and V a rdit Kind ler 8 Pl ay in C h ildr en w ith C ommu nic ation Di sor der s 111 8.1 Some C h ar act eri s tic s of Ment al Pr oc es ses in C h ildr en w ith C ommu nic ation Di sor der s 112 8.2 Play Acti v ities of C h ildr en w ith C ommu nic ation Di sor der s 113 8.3 Env ir onment al F act or s: Augment ati v e Alt ern ati v e C ommu nic ation 11 4 8.4 C onclus ion 117 R e fe renc es 118 Ser enel la Bes io and Nat a lia Amelin a 9 Pl ay in C h ildr en w ith Phy s ic a l Impairment 120 9.1 Mot ric ity and Mind 120 9.2 C h ildr en w ith Phy s ic a l Impairments 121 9.3 Te chno logies and C h ildr en w ith Phy s ic a l Impairments 123 9.4 Play and C h ildr en w ith Ph y s ic a l Impairments 125 9.4.1 Pr actic e Play 126 9.4.2 S y m b o lic Play 127 9.4.3 C o nst ructi v e Pl ay 128 9.4.4 Play w ith R u les 129 9.5 Soc ial Aspect s of Play in C h ildr en w ith Phy s ic a l Impairments 130 R e fe renc es 132 S ylv ie Ray -K aeser , E v ely ne Thommen, Laetitia B a g gioni, and Miodr ag St an k o v ić 10 Pl ay in C h ildr en w ith Auti sm Spect ru m and Other Neu rodev elopment a l Di sor der s 137 10 .1 Play Sk il ls of C h ildr en w ith AS D and Other Neu rodev elopment al Di sor der s 137 10 .2 Ty pes and F orm(s) of Play F a v o u red b y C h ildr en w ith AS D 14 0 10 .3 Play Env ir onment and P a rtic ipation of C h ildr en w ith AS D 14 1
10 .4 C onclus ion 14 2 R e fe renc es 14 2 Fr anc esc a C aprino and V itt oria St uc c i 11 Pl ay in C h ildr en w ith Multip le Di s a bilities 14 7 11.1 Int roduction 14 7 11.2 Play and Multip le Di s
abilities: the Lit
er at u re 14 7 11.3 Impairment s in F u nctions Lin k e d w ith Play and Ludic Acti v ities 148 11.4 The R o le of the Env ir onment f or P a rtic ipating in Play Acti v ities 14 9 11.5 Fa c ilit ating Play in C h ildr en w ith Multip le Di s abilities 150 11.6 C onclus ion 15 2 R e fe renc es 15 3 S ylv ie Ray -K aeser and Helen L y nch 12 Oc cu pation a l Ther ap y P e rs pecti v e on Pl ay f or the Sa k e of Pl ay 155 12.1 Definition of Play fr om the Di sc ip line of O T 15 7 12.2 Play in O T (how O T C ont ribut e s t o the To pic) 15 7 12.3 C onclus ion 161 R e fe renc es 162 Michele M ain ar di 13 C ont ribution of Spec ia l E duc ation t o the Pr omotion of Pl a y f or the Sa k e of Pl ay 166 13.1 Int roduction 166 13.2 Dev elopment of the C h ild , Dev elopment al Di s ability , Spec ial E duc ation 166 13.3 Dev elopment and Play in Spec ial E duc ation 167 13.4 Spont aneo us Pl ay in Spec ial E duc ation 168 13.5 “Let me (them) R e a lly Play”: a Priority in Spec ia l E duc ation 170 R e fe renc es 171 V a s k a S ta n c h e v a -P o pkos tadino v a and T atj an a Z o rc ec 14 Pl ay in Early Int er v ention f or C h ildr en w ith Di s a bilities 17 4 14.1 Int roduction 17 4 14.2 Play in Early Int er v ention 17 4 14.3 Play -ba sed As ses s ment 176 14.4 C h al leng es in U s ing Play in Early Int er v ention 177 14.5 C onclus ion 178 R e fe renc es 178
Odi le P e rino and Ser enel la Bes io 15 Main st re am T o y s f or Pl ay 181 15.1 Int roduction 181 15.2 Dev ic es f or the Play of C h ildr en w ith Int el lect ual Di s abilities 183 15.3 Dev ic es f or the Play of C h ildr en w ith He aring Impairments 184 15.4 Dev ic es f or the Play of C h ildr en w ith V is ual Impairments 187 15.5 Dev ic es f or the Play of C h ildr en w ith C ommu nic ation Di sor der s 189 15.6 Dev ic es f or the Play of C h ildr en w ith Phy s ic a l Impairments 191 15.7 Dev ic es f or the Play of C h ildr en w ith Auti sm Spect ru m Di sor der s 193 15.8 Dev ic es f or the Play of C h ildr en w ith Multip le Di s abilities 196 15.9 C onclus ion 197 R e fe renc es 199 Angh ar ad Beck ett, C a ro l B arr on, Nan C
annon Jones, Mariek
e C ous sens, Annemie Desoet e, Helen L y nch, Maria Pr el lw itz, and Debor ah F enney Sa lk eld 16 Influenc e of Env ir onment a l F act or s on Pl ay f or C h ildr en w ith Di s a bilities – An Ov er v iew 201 16.1 Int roduction 201 16.2 B arrier s t o Play f or C h ildr en w ith Di s abilities w ithin F o u r K e y C ontexts 203 16.2.1 B arrier s in the Built Env ir onment 204 16.2.2 B arrier s in E duc ation al Settings 20 5 16.2.3 B arrier s at Home 206 16.2.4 Barrier s in the Natural En vir onment 206 16.3 Di scus s ion 207 R e fe renc es 208 Ser enel la Bes io , Daniela Bulg a re lli, and V a sk a St anchev a-P o pkos tadino v a C onclus ion 213
Acknowledg
ement
s
W e w ould lik e t o warml y thank the L UDI r eview ers of the w hole t ext , An g har ad B e ckett and Rianne J
ansens
: their c
ontribution has been pr
ecious . A particular thank also t o Anna Andr eev a, F ranc esca Ca prino, S y lvie Ra y, Hilary Gar dner , Odile P erino, and Mir a T z v etk ov a-Arsov a for their c ompet
ent and car
eful r ecipr ocal r evision of the ch ap te rs .
Ser
enel
la Be
s
io
, Daniela Bulg
a
re
lli,
a
n
d
V
a
s
k
a
S
ta
n
c
h
e
v
a
-P
o
pkos
tadino
v
a
Int
roduction
Why
Pl
ay
and
Which Pl
ay
f
or C
h
ildr
en w
ith Di
s
a
bilities?
Article 31 of the Con
v ention on the Ri g hts of the Child ( U nit ed Nations , 1989) gr ants the child the ri ght to rest
and leisure, be able to
engag
e
in pla
y and recreational acti
vities a ppr opriat e t o the a g
e of the child, and participat
e fr
eel
y in cul
tur
al life and the arts
.¹
The same Con
v
ention also pursues the ri
g ht t o social incl usion, int ended as a g ener al fr amew
ork for democr
atic societies
, and as a model of int
erv ention that pr omot es ev ery one’s participation, r espectin g possibilities and c onstr aints , cul tur al st
ories and differ
enc
es
.
Ev
ery nation is curr
entl y in v o lv ed in the efforts t o war ds g ener al incl usion in societies , particularl y with r e g a rds t o ed ucation and tr ainin g institutions and t o legislati v e sy st ems . This ma y r esul t in further depri v ation, gi v en the importanc e of social sharin g in peer pla y
: in this sense, the incl
usion of childr en with disa bilities remains an unr eached g oal.
But these childr
en ha v e the ri g ht t o pla y, and without it , they ha v e limit ed chanc es for dev elopment . The Con v ention of the Ri g hts of P e
rsons with Disa
bilities (U nit ed Nations , 2 006) r e c o
gnises this risk and dedicat
es Article 7 t o the expr ession and pr ot ection of the ri g hts of childr en with disa bilities , emphasisin g the need t o g uar ant ee them pr oper ed ucational pr oc ess in an incl usi v e and life-lon g ed ucational sy st em ( A rt . 2 4), as w ell as the ri g ht t o participat e in r ecr eational acti vities , sports , and ent ertainment , incl udin
g those that tak
e plac e in schools ( A rt . 30). It
can then be stat
ed that pla y is widel y r e c o
gnised as the fundamental acti
vity for the ov er all dev elopment of ev ery child. I t dri v es a ma jor r ole in the ac quisition of c o gniti v e, socio -p sy cholo gical, and r elational skills
, but it is also an innat
e ‘ e n gine’ for curiosity , challen g e, moti v ation t o war
ds action, and social r
elationships . P la y is spontaneous and v o luntary
, and it has no extrinsic g
oals : it is nev er lazy , w hile on the c ontr ary , it r equir es c onc entr ation, int ensity , and it pr od uc es enjoyment and fun. 1 This par a g ra ph of the In tr oduction and partiall y the sec ond one ar e hi g h ly inspir ed t o : 1) B esio, S ., & Carnesec chi, M. (2 011). M emor andum of Under standing of the C O S T A ction “L UDI
. Play for Child
-ren with Disabilities
”. COST A ssociation, Brux elles , r etriev ed fr om: http :/ /w3 .c ost .e u /fileadmin/do -main_files /TDP /A ction_TD1309 /mou /TD1309-e .pdf; 2 ) B esio, S ., Carnesec
chi, M., & Encarnação, P
. (2 015). Intr od ucin g L UDI: a Resear ch Netw ork on P la y for Childr en with Disa bilities . Studies in H e alth T echno lo gy and Informatics . 2 17 :689 -9 5.
2 Int roduction Childr en with disa bilities ma y be depri v ed fr om pla yin g as a dir ect c onsequenc e
of their impairments and/or beca
use the en
vir
onment is not adequat
e enou g h or suita bl y ac c ommodat
ed, so that they can ha
v e ac c ess t o forms and c ont exts of pla y in w
hich they can tak
e part . The scientific c o re issue adopt ed by L
UDI, as the followin
g fi g u re shows , lies at the cr ossr oads of thr ee a u tonomous r esear ch ar eas : disa
bility (impairments’ types
, functionin g char act eristics), pla y ( pla y char act
erisation and dev
elopment , pla y assessment , ri g ht t o pla y), and en vir onmental fact ors (t echnolo g y, c ont exts , pla y situations and sc enarios). These thr ee ar eas also r
eflect the main domains of the Int
ernational Classification of F unctionin g , Disa bility and H eal th pr omot ed by the W orld H eal th Or g anisation in 2 001 ,² w hich ena bles t o
describe the human functionin
g in r
elation t
o
the acti
vity and
the participation and with r
espect t
o
the c
ont
extual aspects of dail
y life, in particular
,
en
vir
onmental and personal fact
ors . Figu re 1. F act or s inv o lv ing childr en w ith di s abilities’ p lay acti v ity (Bes io , C arnesec
chi, & Enc
arn aç ão , 2015 ) 2 In
ternational Classification of Functioning
, Disability and H e alth —ICF ( WHO , 2 001). The v e rsion for Childr en and Y outh (ICF
-CY) has been deli
v
e
red in 2
009
Int roduction 3 A lar g e c ollection of studies of ex c ellenc
e has been dev
ot
ed in the last decades
, in differ ent c ountries , t o the t opic of pla y for childr en with disa bilities . An y w a y, they ha v e been mostl y c onfined t o specific niches , without explorin g these ar eas of resear ch fr om a full y int er disciplinary perspecti v
e; for example, they ha
v e incl uded: dev elopment of social r o botic t ools , implementation of ada pt ed t o y s, or cr eation of new ac c essible pla y g rounds ; cr eation of new t ools of ev al
uation for specific
impairments
; studies in the field of desi
gn. Those initiati v e s, how ev er , still lack a c ommon sy st
ematisation, thus makin
g pla y for childr en with disa bilities a not y et r e co gnised ar ea of r esear ch; furthermor e, in almost all these ar eas of stud y, these childr en ’s pla y is view ed onl y as the mean thr ou g h w hich they can ac
complish clinical and ther
a peutic g oals . The extrinsic g oal of these ed ucational and reha bilitation pr ojects is mainl y the functional r e co v ery of impairments ; they should be consider ed mor e as ‘pla y -lik e’ acti vities , r
ather than trul
y pla y acti vities per se : in other w o rds, children ar e not e ngag ed purel
y for the sak
e of pla y. T o gr ant childr en with disa
bilities the full ex
er cise of their ri g ht t o pla y means to focus on the e ngag
ement connected with l
udic acti vities as an end r ather than as a mean. By takin g int o ac c ount ‘pla y for pla y ’s sak e’ acti vities , the purpose of L UDI is t o cr eat e g ener al a w ar
eness on their impact in the quality of life of childr
en with disa bilities , and t o initiat e a pr oc ess of cul tur
al and social chan
g
e
that will br
eak
down the barriers that hinder the full ex
er cise of their ri g ht t o pla y and the r ealisation
of a true social inc
lusion.
The C
O
S
T
Action ‘L
UDI—Pl
a
y
f
or C
h
ildr
en w
ith Di
s
a
bilitie
s’ and
it
s
C
h
a
lleng
es
‘L UDI—P la y for Childr en with Disa bilities’ is an A ction (2 01 4 -2 018) financ ed by COST (Eur opean Cooper ation Scienc e and T e chnolo g y); it is a mul tidisciplinary netw ork inc ludin g now 3 2 countries and almost 100 r
esear chers and pr actitioners belon gin g to
the humanistic and t
e chnolo gical fields , aimed at stud yin g the t opic of pla y for childr en with disa bilities .³ The L UDI A
ction has the primary objecti
v e of spr eadin g a w ar eness of the importanc e of pr ovidin g childr en with disa
bilities the opportunity t
o pla y. Gi v en the importanc e of pla
y for child dev
elopment
, the A
ction st
ems fr
om the belief that it
is nec essary t o ensur e an equal ri g ht t o pla y and t o put pla y at the c entr e of both mul tidisciplinary r esear ch and int erv ention pr actic es dir ect ed at childr en with disa bilities . The L UDI netw ork is or g anised int o four W orkin g Gr oups ( W Gs): – W G1 : Childr en ’s pla y in r elation t o
the types of disa
bilities – W G2: T e chnolo g y
for the pla
y of childr en with disa bilities 3 The A ction w ebsit es ar e the followin g ones : w w w .c ost .e u /TD1309 ; w w w .ludi-netw ork. eu.
4 Int roduction – W G3 : Cont
exts for the pla
y of childr en with disa bilities – W G4 : Methods , t e chnolo g y, and fr amew
orks for the dev
elopment of the child
with disa bilities ’ pla y W G1 pr ovides the A ction fr amew ork, incl udin g oper
ational definitions of the
main c onc epts ar ound pla y and disa bility . W G2 c
ompiles and distils the existin
g know led g e on t e chnolo g y t o support pla y for childr en with disa bilities . W G 3 anal y
ses the differ
ent c
ont
exts of pla
y and identifies curr
ent barriers hinderin
g childr en with disa bilities the ri g ht t o pla y. F inall y, W G4 builds on the w
ork of all the
other W Gs and pr oposes methods , t e chnolo gies , and fr amew orks t o support pla y for childr en with disa bilities . T o ac c
omplish its objecti
v
e
s,
the L
UDI A
ction will carry out thr
ee main tasks : a) c ollectin g and sy st ematisin g all existin g c ompet enc e and skills : ed ucational resear ch, clinical initiati v e s, and usin g the know -how of r esour c es c entr es and user s’ associations; b) dev eloping new knowled g e r elated to settings , tec hnology (devic es , servic es , str at egies , and pr actic es) associat
ed with the pla
y of childr en with disa bilities ; and c) disseminatin g the best pr actic es emer gin g fr om the joint effort of r esear chers , pr actitioners , and users . The L UDI netw ork is entrust ed with a r eall y ambitious and gr ound -br eakin g g oal, br anchin g int o man y pr ospects of explor
ation and susc
eptible t o si gnificant dev elopments in sev er al fields . New know led g e is expect
ed in all the scientific
-relat ed ar eas , not onl y in the ‘ speciality ’ of disa bility , but as ov er all ac quisitions a bout pla y (dev elopment , t ools , r elationships , acti vities , human ri g hts , and so on)
and child dev
elopment
.
This new know
led g e will cr eati v e ly nurtur
e, in its turn, the fields of
te chnolo gical and t ool dev elopment , clinical and en gineerin g r esear ch, ed ucation and r eha bilitation pr actic e. A mor e sta ble and c onsist ent a w ar
eness on the child
’s pla y dev elopment w ould gi v e mor e suita ble fr amew orks t o pr ofessionals and resear chers t o mak e their int erv entions and pr oposals mor e effecti v e. A mor e widespr
ead sensibleness on the social aspects and v
a lue of pla y w ould r esul t in disseminatin g incl usi v e c ont
exts and methods
.
A
t the same time, a shar
ed belief on the importanc
e of pla
y
—for the sak
e of pla y —for childr en with disa bilities as for an y other child, as w ell as on the r ole of incl
usion for the upc
omin
g human societies
, will demand chan
g
es in man
y aspects
of cul
tur
al and social life: t
o mak e onl y some examples , the ac c essibility of the mainstr eam pla y sit es and t ools , the c oncr et e a pplication of the ri g ht t o pla y for ev
ery child, the adoption of a new mindset on disa
bility , less focused on r e c o v ery and mor e int er est ed in childhood ’s fundamentals .
The main challen
g
e
is alr
ead
y inside the netw
ork, w
hich is both int
ernational and mul ti-disciplinary . Resear chers and pr ofessionals w ho belon g t o L UDI c ome, in fact , fr om man y Eur opean c ountries , brin gin
g with them their social and cul
tur
al
beliefs and experienc
es
, w
hich should be explor
ed and c
ompar
ed, and ar
Int roduction 5 in differ ent fields , w
hich should be mer
g ed t o g ether thr ou g h
deep and pat
ent
discussion. The purpose of this massi
v e mediation acti vity is t o r each r ecipr ocal understandin g and t o dev elop new c ommon, c ollecti v e wisdom, in the li g ht of the basic stat ements shar ed sinc e the beginnin g of the w ork.
But this is an ext
ensi v e pr oc ess , as shiftin g t o new par adi gms al wa y s r equir es a lon
g time and a lot of det
ermination.
⁴ This means
, for example, that at the initial
life of L
UDI, in its first publications
—as this one is
— some inc oher enc e still exists betw een a uthors and pr oposed a ppr oaches
, and that the debat
e is curr entl y open and acti v e. An y pr od uct of L
UDI is then a part of a r
ecursi v e pr oc ess , w hose r esul ts should be c onsider
ed, until its end, as partial st
eps of a lon g r oad.
The P
u
rpo
se of
thi
s
Boo
k
This book is the first deli
v e ra ble of the W G1 ‘ Childr en ’s pla y in r elation t o the types of disa
bilities’, part of the L
UDI netw ork. A s alr ead y said, W G1 is dev ot ed t o the
topics of definition of pla
y, classification of impairments ac c o rdin g ly t o DSM-5 and ICD -1 0
, and classifications of types of pla
y with r espect t o the c o gniti v e c omplexity ,
and the degr
ee and type of social int
er
action. This book is the r
esul t of the first tw o -y ear of acti vities of W G 1.
The main objecti
v e of this book is t o brin g the L UDI c ontribution t o the important t opic of pla y and childr en with disa bilities , beca use an int ernational c onsensus on these tw o ar
eas is still lackin
g in the r elat ed lit er atur e and also in the ov er all pr actic e. In particular , ther e is not a shar ed and g ener al a g reement on
a clear definition of pla
y and pla y acti vities , especiall y w hen they ar e r elat ed t o childr
en with some kind of impairments
, and/or w hen l udic c ont exts ac c essible for these childr en ar e dr a wn up. Thr ee st
eps should be achiev
ed t o support the ri g ht t o pla y of childr en with disa bilities , ensur e equity in its ex er cise, and spr ead a w ar
eness on the importanc
e
of gi
vin
g them the opportunity t
o pla y : first , adopt a ‘ c ommon lan g u a g e’, at least all ov er Eur ope; sec ond, t o put pla y at the c entr e of the mul tidisciplinary r esear ch and int erv ention r e g a rdin g the childr en with disa bilities ; thir d, t o gr ant this t opic
the status of a scientific and social theme of full visibility and r
e c o gnised a uthority . In fact , childr en with disa bilities fac e sev er al limitations in pla y : they mi g h t not be a ble t o pla y ; mi g ht not want t o pla y ; mi g
ht not know how t
o pla y ; mi g h t not r e c o
gnise a situation or a object for their l
udic char
act
eristics
; they can isolat
e
themsel
v
es fr
om the others’ pla
y ; mi g ht be scar ed by a pla y situation; mi g ht pr efer to r
epeat the same pla
y,
in the same wa
y,
in the same sit
e. 4 W e thank Dr . U te Na vidi, w ho serv ed as first r eview er for the L UDI acti vities , c ommissioned by COST , for this v ery enc our a gin g stat ement , that w e immediat el y inc orpor at ed in our vision.
6
Int
roduction
These limitations can be d
ue t o sev er al r easons : impairments t o bod y functions and structur
es can impede or mak
e some actions and acti
vities v ery difficul t; pla y g rounds , t o y
s, and other pla
y t ools can pr ov e not t o be ac c
essible and usa
ble;
social and buil
t en vir onments and c ont exts ma y be neither ac c
essible nor incl
usi v e . F u rthermor e, the w orld of the ad ul ts ar
ound these childr
en mi g ht show sev er al lacks : in ed ucational a w ar
eness and int
entionality ; in specific psy c ho -peda g o gical and r eha bilitati v e c ompet enc e; in effecti v e int erv ention methodolo gies . Mor eov er , these childr en ’s li v es ar e dominat ed by medical and r eha bilitati v e pr actic es , in w hich pla y is al wa y s c onsider ed as an ancillary but v
ery fruitful acti
vity a
ble t
o
reach an instrumental objecti
v e or t o pur sue an impr ov ement . P la y
for the sak
e of pla y is c onsider ed, mainl y for childr en with disa bilities , a wast e of time. The c onc ept of pla
y for the sak
e of pla y str on g ly r efers t o
the distinction betw
een ‘pla y ’ and ‘pla y -lik e’ acti vities . P la y acti vities ar e initiat
ed and carried out by the
pla
y
er (alone, with peers
, with ad
ul
ts
, and so on) onl
y for the purpose of pla
y itself
(fun and joy
, int
er
est and challen
g e, lov e of r a c e and c
ompetition, ilinx and dizziness
,
and so on). They ha
v e of c ourse c onsequenc es on gr
owth and dev
elopment , but these c onsequenc es ar e not int entionall y pursued. P la y -lik e acti vities ar e initiat ed and c ond uct ed by an ad ul
t (with one or mor
e childr en), in ed ucational, clinical, social c ont exts ; they ar e pla y
ful and pleasant
, but their main objecti
v e is other than pla y : for example, c o gniti v e learnin g , social learnin g , functional r eha bilitation, child ’s observ
ation and assessment
, psy c holo gical support , psy c hother a p y. This book w ould int end t o c ontribut e t o mak
e a clear distinction betw
een pla y and pla y -lik e acti vities that , hopefull y, will brin g t o new dev elopments in pla y studies .
Or
g
ani
s
ation of
the C
ont
ent
s
This book sets itself as the basis for the further w
ork of the COST A
ction ‘L UDI—P la y for Childr en with Disa bilities’, by esta blishin g some important c ornerst ones , aft er a car eful ov
erview of the lit
er atur e existin g in the r elat ed fields . I ts c ont ents ar e or g anised as follows : – Cha pt er 1 pr
esents the theme of childr
en ’s pla y in its c ountless fac ets , with special r efer enc e t o ‘
The need of pla
y for the sak
e of pla y ’ ( S er enella B esio). – Cha pt
er 2 deals with one of its special char
act
eristics
, the fact that pla
y should be c onsider ed a child ’s ri g h t,
also in the case of disa
bility : ‘ The ri g h t of Childr en with Disa bilities t o pla y ’ (K eith T o w ler , fr om the Int ernational P la y A ssociation—IP A ). – Cha pt ers 3 and 4 ar e, r especti v e ly , focused on the ‘ Conc eptual r eview of pla y ’ and ‘ Conc eptual r eview of disa
bilities’; they tak
e int
o ac
c
ount the existin
g definitions of these tw o crucial c onstructs as w ell as the ma jor scientific classifications existin g in the int ernational lit er atur e, and finall y, pr opose the
Int
roduction
7
L
UDI Classifications of pla
y and of disa bility t o be adopt ed (N ic ole Bianquin
and Daniela Bul
g a relli). – Cha pt ers 5 t o
11 deepen the char
act
eristics that pla
y mi
g
ht assume in case of
differ
ent types of impairments
, ac c o rdin g t o the L
UDI Classification; the a
uthors of each cha p te rs tried t o tak e int o ac c
ount the aspects of pla
y for the sak
e of
pla
y,
as far as possible with r
efer enc e t o the existin g lit er atur e. In particular , they ar e the followin g ones : – P la y in childr en with int ellectual disa
bilities (Daniela Bul
g a relli and V ask a Stanchev a-P opk ostadinov a) – P la y in childr en with hearin g impairments ( Anna Andr eev a, Pietr o Celo, N ic ole V ian) – P la y in childr
en with visual impairments (Mir
a T z v etk ov a-Arsov a and T amar a Z a ppat err a) – P la y in childr en with c ommunication disor ders ( V ar
dit Kindler and Natalia
Amelina) – P la y in childr en with ph y sical impairments ( S er enella B
esio and Natalia
Amelina) – P la y in childr en with A utism S pectrum Disor ders ( S y lvie Ra y -K aeser , Ev el
yne Thommen, Laetitia B
a
g
gioni, and Miodr
a g Stank ović) – P la y in childr en with mul tiple disa bilities (F ranc esca Ca prino and V itt oria Stuc ci) – Then, thr ee cha p te rs follow , w hich discuss a bout the c ontributions of differ ent fields of r esear
ch and clinical int
erv
ention t
o
the pr
omotion of pla
y for the sak
e of pla y. – Cha pt er 12 r
eports the experienc
es fr om oc cupational ther a p y : The c ontribution of oc cupational ther a py perspecti v e t o the pr omotion of pla y
for the sak
e of pla y ( S y lvie Ra y -K aeser and H elen L ynch). – Cha pt er 13 c onc
erns the special peda
g o g y perspecti v e: The c ontribution of special ed ucation t o the pr omotion of pla
y for the sak
e of pla y (Michele Mainar di). – Cha pt er 1 4 fac
es the theme of earl
y int erv ention: P la y for Earl y Int erv ention for childr en with disa bilities ( V ask a Stanchev a-P opk ostadinov a and T atjana Zor c ec). – Cha pt er 15 —Mainstr eam t o y s for pla y —is r elat ed t o an ov erview of mainstr eam to y s, ac c
ompanied by some hints t
o
sin
g
le out their char
act
eristics with r
espect
to
the differ
ent types of impairments
, but also t o the differ ent types of t o y s (Odile P
erino and Ser
enella B esio). I t is not int ended t o be exha usti v e of the issue ‘t
ools for pla
yin g’, but it wants t o pr opose a first fr amew ork t o int erpr et the w orld of c ommer cial t o y s and t o learn how t o na vi g a te inside, fr om the perspecti v e of a g eneric ad ul t, lik
e, for example, a par
ent
.
–
The final and last Cha
pt er 16 devises some r eflections a bout the en vir onmental
barriers that can be found in the en
vir onment t o esta blish int er estin g and
8 Int roduction pla y ful acti
vities for childr
en with disa bilities —Infl uenc e of En vir onmental F act ors on P la y for Childr en with Disa bilities –an ov erview . A s this cha p te r is c ont empor aril y an ex c erpt and a r e w orkin
g of a publication that has been
c omplet ed by members of L UDI W G 3 , the a
uthors of this cha
p ter ar e the same of that publication ( A n g har ad B e ck ett , Car ol B arr
on, Nan Cannon J
ones , Mariek e Coussens , Annemie Desoet e, H elen L ynch, Maria Pr ell witz, Debor ah F enney Salk eld). ⁵ 5 B arr on, C ., B e ck ett , A. E., Cannon-Jones , N ., Coussens , M., Desoet e, A., F enney , D ., L ynch, H., & Pr ell witz, M. ( F orthc oming ). Barrier s to play and r ecr
eation for childr
en with disabilities . B erlin, D: De Gru yt er .
Ser
enel
la Be
s
io
1 The Need
f
or Pl
ay
f
or the
Sa
k
e
of
Pl
ay
P ut mor e simply , play as w eknow it is primarily a fortification
a
g
ainst the disa
bilities of life Brian S utt on-Smith
1.1 Defining Pl
ay
¹
“I believ ed that , when most of [the] scholars talk
ed a bout pla y, they fundamentall y pr esupposed it t o be either a form of pr o g ress , an ex er cise in pow er , a r elianc e on fat
e, a claim for identity
,
a form of fri
v
olity
, an issue of the ima
gination, or a manifestation of personal experienc
e. M
y
ar
g
ument held that pla
y was ambi
g
uous
, and the evidenc
e for that ambi
g uity la y in these quit e differ ent scholarl y wa y s of viewin g pla y. F u rther , ov er the y
ears it became clear t
o me that much of pla y was by itself —in its v ery natur e, w e mi g ht sa y —int entionall y ambi g uous (as , for example, is t easin g) r e g a rdless of [...] g ener al cul tur al fr ames ” ( S utt on-Smith, 2 008 :112 ). So, w hat is pla y, then ? I
t is seriousness and fri
v
olity
: r
eality and mak
e-believ
e: rules
and fr
eedom. W
ithin these antinomies lies the human experienc
e of pla
y,
w
hich must
c
ope with a frustr
atin g dichot om y that is al wa y s r esol v ed thr ou g h action. This d uality is so deepl y r oot
ed in the phenomenon of pla
y that S
utt
on-Smith based his last ‘theory
of pla y ’ on it — called ‘ c oev ol utionary mul tiplex of functions’— w her e pla y is described alon g fi v e ada pti v e la y e rs of ‘ d ual udics’. Ri v e rs of ink ha v e
been spilled in an att
empt t o find a uni v e rsall y ac c ept ed definition of pla y, especiall y in differ ent cul tur al en vir onments
. A now old but
fascinatin g definition is pr ovided by F ink: “P la y r esembles an oasis of ha ppiness that w e ha
ppen upon in the desert of our T
antal us -lik e seekin g and pursuit of ha ppiness . W e ar e a b d uct ed by pla y. By pla yin g w e ar e r eleased a bit fr om the mechanism of life—as if w e w e re tr ansport ed t o another c elestial bod y, w her e life a ppears easier , mor e ether eal, ha ppier ” (F ink, 1986). ² 1 F
or the purpose of this cha
p te r, it is important t o str ess her e a g ain that , within the L UDI fr ame-w
ork, for childr
en with disa
bilities
, pla
y has the same meanin
g and the same v
a
lue that it has for all
the childr
en. This fact has one main c
onsequenc e: all disc ourse surr oundin g pla y and childr en with disa
bilities must deri
v e fr om and be strictl y c onnect ed t o the disc ourse c onc ernin g pla y in g ener al. F or this r eason, the r eflection on pla y her e is dev eloped fr om the ov er all immeasur a ble lit er atur e on pla y. 2 This par a g ra
ph has been inspir
ed by B
esio (2
10 The Need f or Play f or the Sak e of Play Sinc e ancient Gr eec e, pla y has been r e c o
gnised as a peculiar acti
vity of the human
bein g , at an y a g e. ³ A c c o rdin g t o Arist
otle, it should be distin
g
uished fr
om w
ork,
beca
use it lacks nec
essity , and lik e virtue and ha ppiness , it is r ather char act erised by fr
eedom and self
-sufficienc y. Centuries lat er , K ant associat ed it t o an aesthetic c ondition, beca use it is a ble t o mak e ima
gination and int
ellect act t o g ether . But sinc e it beg an t o
be studied and anal
y sed in an effort t o r e c o gnise and understand it , pla y esca ped an
y definition that tried t
o fix it , define it , enc ode it . A fundamental att empt t o find a c ompr ehensi v e definition of pla y is offer ed by H uizin g a
in his famous book
H
omo Ludens
, w
her
e it is described as the dri
vin
g for
c
e
of
all human acti
vities , a sort of primor dial bi g ban g fr om w hich ci vilisation itself c omes fr om: “ cul tur
e arises in the form of pla
y, […] it is pla y ed fr om the v ery beginnin g” (196 7: 46). While fulfillin g the ph y siolo
gical and biolo
gical functions , ac c o rdin g t o the a uthor , pla
y can be defined as “a fr
ee acti vity standin g quit e c onsciousl y outside ‘o rdinary ’ life as bein
g ‘not serious’, but at the same time a
bsorbin g the pla y er int ensel y and utt erl y. I t is an acti vity c onnect ed with no mat erial int er est , and no pr ofit can be g ained by it . I t pr oc
eeds within its own pr
oper boundaries of time and
spac e ac c o rdin g t o fix ed rules and in an or derl y manner . I t pr omot es the formation of social gr oupin g s w hich t end t o surr ound themsel v es with secr ec y and t o str ess their differ enc e fr om the c ommon w orld by dis g
uise or other means” (196
7:13). In lit er atur e, fr om the ed ucational, psy c holo
gical and leg
al fields ,⁴ differ ent and ov erla ppin g definitions ha v e been pr
oposed that focus att
ention on c e rtain aspects . Each of them gi v
es a sense of fulfilment and seems both t
o c ompensat e for a lack of int erpr etation and t o underline an a bsenc e. Aft er all, as stat ed by B ondioli (2 00 2
), each of these models seems onl
y t o r e d u c e a hu g e theme t o
one of its small
and basicall y limit ed aspects . In short , pla y is indefina bl y pla y, t o
the point that Miller (19
7
3) pr
oposes t
o
a
bandon the challen
g e of findin g a sin g le definition. In fr ont of the ba boon ca g e at the 3 P la y, ac c o rdin g t o Gil y, “is not a ri g ht for onl y a few men, if an ythin g y oun g er people, but it is a nec
essity for all. I
t int erpr ets takin g action ac c o rdin g t o spontaneity , ori ginality , and the fr ee ex er cise of one’s facul ties . Depr essed by pr olon g ed la bor , the pla y instinct r emains on the ed g es of or dinary
human life, but emer
g
es as soon as ease and hope liber
at
e a spac
e for its insurmounta
ble need, such
an obvious and r
e
c
o
gniza
ble need that man did not lose time t
o explain or t o deify it . I ts meanin g is so
clear that it does not r
equir e ar g uments , so ur g ent t o ov er c ome pov
erty and sadness
: it has onl y end in itself, it j ustifies by itself ” (2 006 :16). 4 The Int ernational P la y A ssociation Declar
ation on the child
’s ri
g
hts t
o
pla
y maintains that “pla
y is
an essential part of childhood. All childr
en ha v e a ri g ht t o experienc e pla y w hich, in the w o rds of the Declar ation, is fr
ee, open, boundless
, sometimes chaotic, sometimes tr
ansformati v e. P la y is a ri g ht w hich all ad ul ts ha v e a r esponsibility t o uphold. [...] The IP A Declar ation hi g hli g hts the gr owin g evi-denc
e of the effects of lack of time and spac
e for pla
y and the serious and
life-lon
g effects on childr
en
’s
bodies and minds
. IP
A wishes t
o
alert the wider c
ommunity t
o
this evidenc
e and call for action t
o
addr
ess this depri
v ation befor e the effects ca use lifelon g dama g e t o mor e childr en ”. Ther esa Casey , Pr esident , IP A, http :/ /w w w .ipa w orld. or g .
Play C h ar act eri s tic s 11
zoo, people know
—and ther e is g ener al a g reement on it
—if the animals ar
e pla
yin
g
,
but they cannot explain w
h
y,
and on w
hat crit
eria they base their assertion. Similarl
y, Bund y (199 3 ; 2 000), w ho intr od uc ed an int er estin g test of playfulness ,⁵ c oncl udes : “e v ery one knows w
hether a child or some childr
en ar e pla yin g . That is pla y : w hat is re c o gnized as such by c ommon observ ers”. T o dev elop its pr oject , the COST A ction L UDI—P la y for Childr en with Disa bilities chose t o
adopt the definition pr
oposed by Garv ey : “P la y is a r a n g e of v o luntary , intrinsicall y moti v a ted acti vities normall y associat ed with r ecr eational pleasur e and enjoyment” (1990 :4). Ev
en if the identification of a definition esta
blishes an important point of
a
g
reement and sharin
g for r
esear
chers in the netw
ork, this is not enou
g
h, for the
same r
easons discussed earlier
, t
o
exha
ust the discussion on the theme of pla
y. In w hat follows , some in-depth pr oposals ar e pr esent ed on c e
rtain aspects of pla
y that ha v e been c onsider ed important t o stud
y this phenomenon and its dev
elopment
in childr
en with v
arious types of impairments
: in particular , the char act eristics of pla y, its fundamentals
, and the main functions it ac
c
omplishes
.
It
is believ
ed that these elements can be useful for anal
y
sin
g
, on the one hand,
the difficul
ties that childr
en with disa bilities ma y enc ount er in their pla y acti vities
and, on the other
, the specific c
onsequenc
es that an
y depri
v
ation of fun acti
vities ma y ca use t o their dev elopment as a w hole.
1.2 Pl
ay
C
h
ar
act
er
is
tic
s
Ther e ar e numer ous pr oposals of ‘ essential tr aits’ or ‘ c har act eristics’ of pla y in lit er atur e in this field. A c c o rdin g t o B a teson (1956), they can be summarised in:
unfinalisation , cr eativity , not liter alness , flexibility , pleasur e. L evy ’s pr oposal (19 78) incl
udes the followin
g thr ee tr aits : in trinsic motiv ation (moti v
ation for the acti
vity for the sak e of the acti vity itself ), suspension of r e ality ( puttin g r
eality aside), and
in
ternal
locus of con
tr
o
l (the child has self
-c
ontr
ol); and Lillem
yr (2 009) adds in ter actions in play . W ithin L UDI, pla y char act eristics ar e the distincti v e qualities of pla y, c ommon to
all its types
, w hich c ontribut e t o gi vin
g the phenomenon its special peculiarity
; onl y some pr oposals —amon g those hi g hli g h ted by the v arious a uthors w ho ha v e studied pla y —ar e pr esent ed as follows : they ha v e
been chosen as important elements
of att
ention, harbin
g
e
rs of r
eflections and dev
elopments w hen it c omes t o pla y and childr en with disa bilities . These qualities , shortl y described in w hat follows , ar e: the feelin g of fr eedom
, its association with
concen tr ation and in tensity (r ather than with laziness), as w ell as with pleasur e and/or with fun
; in addition, the fact that
5
See also Bund
y et al. (2
001); Meakins et al. (2
12 The Need f or Play f or the Sak e of Play pla y is al wa y s c ond uct ed in serious wa y s, dri v en by curiosity and surprise , in trinsic motiv ation, and finall y, by challeng e .
The first featur
e that infant pla
y brin g s t o ev ery
one’s mind is the
fr
eedom
it allows
to
experiment and expr
ess
.⁶
I
t is also the first of the tr
aits mark ed by Caillois , w ho her e is infl uenc ed by H uizin g a. H e str esses that as c ontr olled pla y is no lon g er pla y,
it loses its natur
e of attr
acti
v
e
and joy
ful fun. Int
er
estin
g
ly for the purposes of L
UDI, Caillois gi v es t o the c onstruct of fr eedom, mor e pr operl y, the meanin g of spontaneity , immediac y, car efr eeness , means of desir
e and action: “a basic fr
eedom is c entr al t o pla y in or der t o stimulat e distr
action and fantasy
. This liberty is its indispensa
ble moti v e pow er and is basic t o the most c
omplex and car
efull
y or
g
anized forms of pla
y.
S
u
ch a primary pow
er of impr
ovisation and joy
, w hich I call paidia , is allied t o the tast e for gr atuit ous difficul ty that I pr opose t o call ludus ” ( Caillois , 2 001 :2 7). But t o Caillois , pla y is fr ee also beca
use it can onl
y belon g t o fr ee men: “it is a l u x ury acti vity and it belon g s t o fr ee men. H u n
gry people don
’t pla y ” (ibid: 14). F reedom in pla y has also ov erlook ed implications , perha ps sli g htl y embarr assin g , in field studies ; in fact
, it also means lic
ense and lic
entiousness : in pla y g estur es and w o rd s, and in jok es and diatribes . S utt on-Smith, in this r e g a rd, underlines the extr
eme aspect that these kinds of pla
y ma y show : “ A t the v ery least , they su g g est
that for the childr
en w
ho tak
e part in the jok
ery
, ther
e need be no limit t
o
the shocks
they can incl
ude in this kind of unorthodo
x pla y — so lon g as they mak e them funn y ” (S utt on-Smith, 2 008 : 91). The char act eristic of fr eedom oft en made it possible t o c ount erpoise pla y t o w ork,
both in the case of the acti
vities of childr
en and ad
ul
ts
, and in the case of leisur
e time
and or
g
anised time, for example, thr
ou g h peda g o gical acti vities . H o w e v e r, fr eedom is nev er associat
ed with laziness or bor
edom, but r ather with concen tr ation , in tensity , and density ; and these ar e additional nota ble featur
es of our object of stud
y. P oetic expr essions ha v e been used t o describe the c ondition in w
hich a child pla
y s: if F ink (1960) talks a bout dense r eality , w her e life is hi g h ly c onc entr at ed and childr en a ppear to be t otall y a bsorbed by it , H uizin g a talks a bout t
ension, that is the desir
e t o achiev e, to be suc c essful, and t o int
errupt that same t
ension. But these ar
e c
onditions that ar
e
both pow
erful and know
led g e a ble: “P la y demonstr at es that tw o differ ent attitudes c o -exist: t o be full y in v o lv ed in w
hat one is doin
g and t
o
be a
w
ar
e of the fact that w
e ar e within a r elati v e, delimit ed and c onditioned dimension ” (B esio, 2 008 : 1). A c c o rdin g t o H uizin g a, “this int
ensity of, and a
bsorption in, pla
y finds no explanation in biolo gical anal y sis . Y et in this int ensity , this a
bsorption, this pow
er of maddenin g , lies the v ery essenc e, the primor
dial quality of pla
y ” (H uizin g a, 19 38 :3). Natur e mi g ht ha v e gi v en t o her childr en the pow er of “ dischar gin g super a bundant 6 V y g otskij (196 7) c ontr
asts this int
erpr
etation by puttin
g the bond, the limit
, at the basis of the
pleasur e inher ent t o pla y.
Play C h ar act eri s tic s 13 ener g y, of r elaxin g aft er ex ertion
”; but “no, she g
a v e us pla y, with its t ension, its
mirth, and its fun
” (ibidem).
H
e
re
is another important char
act eristic of pla y : it is , in fact , al wa y s associat ed with fun and/or pleasur e . A c c o rdin g t o F reud (19 2 0), pla y r esponds , is led by the “principle of pleasur e”, w hich first a
ppears in the childr
en
’s l
udic acti
vities
: in his
famous example of the nephew w
ho enjoy
s pla
yin
g t
oss and cat
ch with a spool
w
henev
er the mother lea
v
es the r
oom, he sees the pr
oof that the child feels joy in
anticipatin
g or r
epr
esentin
g the possible, desir
ed, r
eturn of his mother
. The acti
v
e
role ex
er
cised by the child actin
g on the spool allows the desir
e t o mat erialise, and the child t o dominat e an unpleasant emotion— w hich is no lon g er passi v e ly suffer ed — and r eplacin
g it with a pleasant one.
⁷ The pleasur e pr od uc ed by pla
y does not seem t
o
run out spontaneousl
y in the
ex
cit
ement of the moment
, an end in itself; on the c
ontr ary , it seems t o lea v e tr ac es , an
imprint on the indi
vid ual ’s feelin g s in r elation t o life itself: “[ pla y ’s positi v e pleasur e] mak es it possible t o li v e mor e full y in the w orld, no matt er how borin g or painful or ev en dan g e rous or dinary r eality mi g ht seem ” ( S utt on-Smith, 2 008 :9 5). Al thou g h sometimes pla y, in its bea utiful s win g betw een opposit es , positi v e ly mak
es use of the scheme, the r
epetition, the use of known and familiar
, its underl yin g bac kbone lies in w hat is new , in disc ontinuity .⁸ In fact
, it pursues and uses flexibility
: not onl y does it t end t o war ds r epr od
uction, imitation, but it c
onstantl y seeks chan g e s, “in form or in c ont ent . P la y is a phenomenon t o the ext ent of w hat is possible” (B ondioli, 2 0 0 2: 55). ⁹ F un c omes oft en fr om the unexpect ed, fr om surprise (Eberle, 2 0 14): her e ar e
some of the attribut
es of pla y list ed by S utt on-Smith: chanciness , fl uidity , ambi g uity , particularity , di v e rsity of perspecti v e (H enricks , 2 015 :1 17). T easin g , a specific type of pla y studied by this a uthor , seems t o be specificall y r elat ed t o the feelin g of surprise or ev en shock; it tak es differ ent forms ac c o rdin g t o the cul tur es in w hich it can be
found, and it seems r
elev
ant in the pla
y r
elationship betw
een the child and the ad
ul
t,
bec
omin
g a means of social learnin
g
.
Ev
en if it ha
ppens oft
en, fun does not nec
essaril y, how ev er , bec ome la u g ht er , joy , relief, or cheerfulness , or ev en sometimes ex cit ement: “ Of c ourse, it must be str essed
that the pleasur
e of pla y is not al wa y s manifest ed in deli g ht or g lee or la u g ht er . P la y, as H uizin g a (196 7) points out at gr eat len gth, can be a v ery serious
business but still
7 This wish, ac c o rdin g t o F reud, is a wish t o be ad ul ts and t o act lik e them (Metr a, 2 006). 8 W ith r efer enc e t o a sociolo gical perspecti v e, S utt on-Smith adds : “ The challen g e for scholars is t o
explain the social, personal and cul
tur
al implications of this quest for disor
der , ex cit ement , and dis -c
onnection. […] One can also look at all kinds of g
ames […], as w
ell as at all of the pla
y in the arts […]
and see that in all of them the w
orld is a mor e ex citin g plac e in w hich t o li v e for a pla y er or spectat or ,
at least for a time” (
S utt on-Smith, 2 015 : 2 4 9). 9 All quotations of I talian a uthors ha v e been tr anslat ed by the a uthor of this c h a p te r.
14 The Need f or Play f or the Sak e of Play within pla
y the act of doin
g is clearl
y r
e
war
din
g in the sense that it incit
es its own repetition ” (Miller , 1 973: 91). The pla y in w
hich the child is in
v o lv ed is al wa y s seriousl y challenging ,¹⁰ dri v en by in trinsic motiv ation not onl y or not so much t o ac hiev e a r esul t, but r ather t o k eep ali v e the pla y pr oc
ess itself and t
o c ontinue t o belon g t o it , alon
g with fellow pla
y e rs , if an y. A c c o rdin g t o Miller , both the pr actic e pla
y and rule-based pla
y or t
eam g
ame pr
ovide
the same pleasur
e of ‘ bein g in ’ the pla y, r ather than t o achiev e a r esul t. W innin g a g ame or achievin g a r esul
t is “important insofar as they ar
e symbols for the d
ynamics and the c hallen g e that w e re in v o lv
ed in their attainment” (ibid:
9
3).
P
la
y
ends and finds meanin
g in itself, ther efor e, in the pleasur e of doin g and the pr oc ess of pla yin g ;¹¹ “ The int er
est of the subject is addr
essed t o the pr oc ess r ather than t o the pr od
uct; the usual means
-ends r elationship is r e v e rsed. In other w o rd s, the g ame is intrinsicall y moti v a
ted, does not t
end t o satisfy primary ph y sical needs ,
and does not depend on ext
ernal rules or social obli
g ations . The pr esenc e of rules does not c ontr
adict the principle of fr
eedom, as submission t o the l udic c o n v entions tak es plac e thanks t o a u tonomous choic e” (B ondioli, 2 0 0 2: 55). P la y is a challen gin g pr oc ess and fr om the pla y e r— child or ad ul t— demands c
ommitment and seriousness (a car
eless pla
y
er is r
eprimanded by his or her
c
ompanions and is ask
ed t o ‘pla y for r eal ’). But , not es B ondioli, the di vidin g line betw een pla y, especiall
y that of fiction, and r
eality must al wa y s be clearl y maintained: “
The seriousness with w
hich the child or the ad
ul
t tak
es their g
ames and
their pastimes
, the fact that pla
y oft
en r
equir
es c
omplianc
e with detailed rules and
pr
oc
ed
ur
es
, does not eliminat
e the ‘not serious’ quality of these acti
vities in r
elation
to
or
dinary life. The c
onfusion betw
een the tw
o plans is not allow
ed: the childr
en ar e r eprimanded or r eassur ed if they tak e their pla y t oo seriousl y ; they ar e r eminded that it is just a g ame ”(ibid: 40). In fiction or in pla y ful c onc entr ation, sev er al ‘mak e-believ e’ acts ar e ac c omplished ‘ seriousl y ’, but the r
ealism of such acts must nev
er let the tw o c ont exts ov erla p.
1.3 F
u
n
dament
a
ls
of
Pl
ay
A l udic activity has man
y fac
ets and has been described under man
y aspects
. In this
section, an att
empt is made t
o
identify and describe some essential par
amet ers of 10 I t seems important t o
point out that Milner (19
5 2 ), quot ed by W innic ott (19 7 1), pr oposed a c onnec -tion betw een childr en ’s pla y and ad ul ts’ c onc entr ation. 11 Some a
uthors speak of ‘a
ut ot elic acti vities ’. In his w ell -known theor y of flow , Csiks zentmihal yi (1990 ; 199 7) incr easin g ly uses the t erm ‘a ut ot elic acti vity ’ inst ead of ‘pla y ful acti vities’ or pla y. And, S uits pr
oposes one of the short
est existin g definitions of pla y as follows : “a t empor ary r eallocation to a u to telic acti vities of r esour c es primaril y c ommitt ed t o instrumental purposes ” ( S uits , 19 77 :1 24).
Fu n dament als of Play 15
the phenomenon, as it manifests in childhood that should be c
onsider ed crucial for stud yin g pla y by childr en with disa bilities . Six fundamental ha v e
been identified in the r
elat
ed fields and will be discussed
in their v arious fac ets , in w hat follows , with r espect t o the existin g lit er atur e, they ar e: the c onc ept of fr ame and of being in vo lv ed , the need of doing , the r ole of ima gination and fa n tasy , the importanc e of the rules , the social aspects of pla y, its capacity to e v ol ve in c hildhood.
The first fundamental of pla
y t o be c onsider ed is the special c ondition of life that is experienc ed and act ed d urin g this acti vity : this experienc e can be defined as being in the g ame , or in-lusio (H uizin g a, 196 7). P la y, as inl usio —Latin ori gin of the w o rd —is “a tr ansformation of r eality int o a h ypothetical c
onnection, without claims
to objecti vity : it mov es a w a y fr om r eality
, but it does not tr
ansc end it” ( Gil y, 2 006). B a teson (19 56) identified and hi g hli g h
ted this featur
e of pla y as a fr ame bett er and befor e other a uthors . “P la y is a c ont ext , or w hat B a teson calls a ‘fr ame’. I t is a mode of or g anization of beha viour — one wa y of fittin g piec es of acti vity t o g ether ” (Miller , 19 7 3 :9 2 ). The essenc e of pla y is in its bein g a meta-c ommunication; a pla y er must be a ble to stat e: “ This is pla y ”. This messa g e cr eat es a fr ame, a psy c holo gical fr amew ork, servin g as a fil
ter for the int
erpr etation of w hat ther e is inside. By pla yin g , one g ets int o a c ont
ext and int
o a dimension differ ent fr om r eality , g o v
erned by specific rules
, shar ed by and known t o pla y e rs ; pla y implies a chan g e of perspecti v e, or r ather , of par adi gm. ¹² By pla yin g , one mak es a lo gical lea p, fr om learnin g a c ont
ent (a ‘type one’
learnin g) t o ‘ deut er o learnin g’, w hich c onc erns c ont exts , r elationships , and their modes of functionin g . I
t is in this sense that B
a teson can hi g hli g ht the par ado xical featur e of pla y : it r equir es an a g reement amon g pla y e rs on w
hat ‘is true’ and w
hat
‘is mak
e believ
e’; the parties must a
g
ree on the fr
amew
ork within w
hich they find
themsel v e s, by definin g the l
udic status of their acti
vity , and maintainin g it as it is d urin g its dev elopment (B ondioli, 2 0 0 2 ). The pla y e rs a g ree willin g ly and quickl y, and show a c ommon desir e t o inha bit that fr ame, t o indeed ‘ be in pla y
’; they defend their l
udic acti vity a g ainst intruders , w ho w ould lik e t o intr od uc e a c oher enc e crit erion, unr elat ed t o the pr oposed rules , beca use they don ’t want pla y t o dist ort int o somethin g differ ent . If a child violat es the rules
and does not seem r
eall y in v o lv ed in pla y, he or she is c onsider ed a tr oublemak er ,¹³ and is , in fact , ruled out , or pla y disa ppears . But pla y is not t otall y an ill usion, beca
use it is not confused with the real data,
thus g ener ating misunder standi ngs; to 12 B at eson himself r efers t o
the notion of par
adi gm in K uhn. 13 B ondioli (2 00 2 ) r efers t o a st ory — entitled Childhood —by T olst oj , in w hich he vi vidl y describes his br other ’s listless participation in c ollecti v e pla y.
