Play in the Lives of Diverse Families

Report from the Inclusion and Diversity Committee (IDC)
/ Summer 2018 NCFR Report

Thomas W. Blume, Ph.D., LPC, LMFT, IDC Chair; Tiffany L. Brown, Ph.D.; and Elizabeth Grace Holman, Ph.D., IDC Members

Reflecting on the theme of this issue of Family Focus, the Inclusion and Diversity Committee (IDC) would like to share some observations related to the topic of play from a social justice perspective. Play has multiple meanings; what is traditionally referred to as free play is observed among young children in diverse cultures as they engage with their physical and social worlds. Scholars such as Singer, Singer, d’Agostino, and DeLong (2009) have extolled the virtues of unstructured play which may be associated with health benefits, as it generally involves physical activity play; intellectual benefits, as it promotes the development of curiosity and complex understandings about the physical environment; and socioemotional benefits as it offers opportunities for learning about self and others.

A second meaning of play refers to competitive play, which involves winning and losing (see Henricks, 2015). This kind of play typically becomes more prevalent in middle childhood and extends throughout adulthood for many people. When engaged in individual and team play, participants challenge themselves and one another to strengthen their bodies and minds, practicing and refining their performances to achieve higher levels of excellence in athletic, creative, emotional, and intellectual performance. These kinds of competitive play serve not only individual participants but also their families and communities, who can find common ground in their shared support for a team or a player. This kind of play can also include creative and intellectual play—such as academic and creative performances—in addition to physical play.

Intersections of these two meanings can be seen in a third, more relational meaning of play. This meaning focuses less on outcomes and individual experiences and more on interactions among players. Many family scholars and practitioners such as Milteer and Ginsburg (2012) emphasize play as a way to enhance family relationships. Parents, grandparents, and other parental figures, as well as with adult siblings and adult children, have been encouraged to find ways to incorporate more play and leisure into their lives so as to better connect with children and adolescents as well as each other.

A Social Justice View

From a social justice perspective, members of the IDC look at the promotion of play and feel concern that enthusiasts may overlook issues of equity, privilege, and social capital. Children, adolescents, and adults of different generations live in widely different contexts where they may not have equal resources, equal opportunities, or equal needs for play.

From their earliest years, children of privilege are given access to expensive tools of competitive play: gymnastics classes, swimming pools, athletic uniforms, art supplies, and the latest video games. Privileged adults, too, are likely to have opportunities for play such as golf courses, school and community theater companies, yoga classes, and marathon runs. For privileged children in stable communities, exploratory play may be promoted at home, where adults model curiosity and joy (Udwin & Shmukler, 1981).

But many children and other family members are living in contexts that mitigate against a life that includes play. Smith, Stagnitti, Lewis, and Pepin (2015) found that many U.S. parents with intergenerational history of poverty did not see playing with their children as central to their role as parents. Those families might have different perspectives and priorities regarding play resulting from their challenging economic situations. It is difficult to consider leisure activities when basic needs have not been met across the lives of multiple generations. Caregivers   who work multiple jobs may not have free time; even if play is desired there is not the time to engage in such activities (Han, 2006).  Play and leisure activities can also come with monetary costs that are prohibitive for families in poverty.

Many of the parents in Smith et al.’s (2015) study expressed a belief that play was good but inappropriate for adults. But others referred to a desire to escape the stresses of parenting by using television to keep their children distracted. This is noteworthy in light of Singer et al.’s (2009) expressed concern over an apparent international pattern of children’s play being replaced by media use.

Milteer and Ginsburg’s (2012) literature review on the importance of play among families in poverty suggested that although the benefits of play for child development and family relationships were clear, the risks for children in poverty were disproportionate as schools lost recess time to an emphasis on making up for academic shortcomings; parks in the neighborhoods that were studied were taken over by drug dealers and lack of funding for maintenance; and parents lacked the experience and knowledge to guide their children in play activities. The authors called for a multi-level effort to combat the loss of play and leisure in the lives of children and families.

Ulen (2016) pointed to additional social justice concerns related to children’s play. She observed that Black children in the U.S. experience disproportionate levels of surveillance and punishment at home, in school, and in the community. Therefore, she says, they have limited opportunities for unstructured exploratory play. She notes that “Black parents often fear that free play, and the exuberant expression of freedom uninhibited play engenders, puts their children at risk.” In addition, children in lower socioeconomic status communities or those living in refugee settlements may not have access to safe spaces for play (Stone, Faulkner, Mitra, & Buliung, 2014) – in addition to fewer physical education and sports opportunities in their schools (Carlson, Mignano, Norman, McKenzie, Kerr, Arredondo, & ... Sallis, 2014).

Implications

How can these critiques influence the work of family scholars, teachers, and practitioners? Play and its manifestations offer challenges for social justice-oriented family professionals.

Researchers will find that the current state of play literature leaves many questions unexplored or unanswered regarding play and its functions. Examples of areas for study include Waniganayake’s (2001) exploration of war and starvation themes in the play of refugee children. She described adults’ discomfort when this play occurred in their facilities. Izenstark, Oswald, Holman, Mendez, and Greder (2016) described physical, psychological, and health benefits for low-income mothers and children who engaged in family nature activities including visiting playgrounds, taking walks, and playing with pets. Such research findings can provide support for advocacy and at the same time the research process may directly benefit research participants.

In the policy and resource arena, research and advocacy could encourage community opportunities for play and patterns of involvement if they help policymakers to understand how legacies of slavery, segregation, and violence are connected with cultural understandings of the environment as well as who should and can have access to natural spaces (Arai & Kivel, 2017). Those who allocate money would benefit from more information about where and when children, adolescents, and adults spend their leisure time and whether safe locations are available for unstructured as well as competitive play.

Family professionals also may not recognize that play and leisure activities look different across cultures, so these might be missed by those who are using a dominant perspective to conceptualize play. For example, if families engage in leisure activities in their church community, then researchers might overlook the leisure and play element by defining the activities as religious engagement.  Incorporating social justice themes into the training and curriculum of future practitioners, teachers, and policy makers can enhance our understanding of the positive implications of play and leisure, including culturally grounded ways of engaging children and families in play. Although scholars and practitioners agree on the value of play for strengthening and supporting family relationships, we hope to see increasing emphasis on the families and individuals who face barriers that seriously limit their access to such activity.

 

Selected References

Izenstark, D., Oswald, R. F., Holman, E. G., Mendez, S. N., & Greder, K. A. (2016). Rural, low-income mothers’ use of family-based nature activities to promote family health. Journal of Leisure Research, 48, 134-155. doi:10.18666/jlr-2016-v48-i2-6409

Milteer, R. M., & Ginsburg, K. R. (2012). The importance of play in promoting healthy child development and maintaining strong parent–child bond: Focus on children in poverty. Pediatrics, 129, e204. Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/129/1/e204.ful…

Singer, D. G., Singer, J. L., D’Agostino, H., & DeLong, R. (2009). Children’s pastimes and play in sixteen nations: Is free-play declining?  American Journal of Play, 1(3), 283-312.

Smith, R. L., Stagnitti, K., Lewis, A. J., & Pepin, G. (2015). Do parents value play? The views of parents who experience intergenerational poverty on parenting and play: a qualitative analysis. Child: Care, Health, and Development, 41, 873-881. doi:10.1111/cch.12268

Ulen, E. N. (2016, May 25). When play is criminalized: Racial disparities in childhood. Truthout. Retrieved from http://www.truth-out.org/articles/item/36947

Waniganayake, M. (2001). From playing with guns to playing with rice: The challenges of working with refugee children: An Australian perspective. Childhood Education, 77, 289-294. doi:10.1080/00094056.2001.10521652

 

Additional References

Arai, S., & Kivel, B. D. (2017). Critical race theory and social justice perspectives on whiteness, difference(s) and (anti)racism: A fourth wave of race research in leisure studies. Journal of Leisure Research, 41, 459-472.

Henricks, T. (2015). Play and the human condition. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Carlson, J. A., Mignano, A. M., Norman, G. J., McKenzie, T. L., Kerr, J., Arredondo, E. M., & ... Sallis, J. F. (2014). Socioeconomic disparities in elementary school practices and children's physical activity during school. American Journal Of Health Promotion, 28(3, Suppl), S47-S53.

Han, W. (2006). Maternal work schedules and child outcomes: Evidence from the National Survey of American Families. Children And Youth Services Review, 28(9), 1039-1059.

Stone, M. R., Faulkner, G. J., Mitra, R., & Buliung, R. N. (2014). The freedom to explore: Examining the influence of independent mobility on weekday, weekend and after-school physical activity behaviour in children living in urban and inner-suburban neighbourhoods of varying socioeconomic status. The International Journal Of Behavioral Nutrition And Physical Activity, 11(5).