From values to counting: the apoliticisation of play (and much else)

One way of characterising the play sector, if indeed it constitutes a sector, is that it is apolitical and dependent, those two qualities interacting and exacerbating each other.

By apolitical, I mean that it has no obvious popular or voter support, nor is much attention directed towards securing it. Rather, the ‘sector’ concentrates its efforts on being persuasive within the established corridors of power. To gain leverage there the approach has been to follow the national and local state’s increasing reliance on reducing questions of value and principle into essentially technical matters, the clearest expression of this being the  reliance on suppositious ‘evidence’.

The other characteristic is dependency. By dependency I mean that the play sector is overwhelmingly reliant on national and local state funding, along with key charitable funders whose procedures and priorities so often mirror that of the state. There is a link between dependent status and the apolitical orientation of the play sector. Whilst it is the case that the sector can erupt in support of organisations and projects that are under threat, for the most part it is funded projects and organisations lobbying on behalf of projects and organisations that are structurally in the same position – dependent on external funding. A cynic might suggest that there is a strong sense of ‘there but for the grace of god go I’ pulsing beneath the surface of solidarity. However, that does not invalidate it.

The main point here is that there is no overt, external voter or popular support for play or the play sector. Such ‘popular’ support as may exist is fragmentary, intermittent, in no way constituting a political force. The sector is rooted in itself and to that extent it is fragile and, arguably, not as independent of mind and voice as perhaps it could be. Recent events surely underscore this bleak assessment of fragility.

I was reading Adrian Voce’s well written book, Policy for Play.  (My review of the book will be published at some point in the International Journal of Play) It offers what amounts to a Diplomatic or Institutional history of the play sector’s relationship with Government and Lottery/BIG.   It focuses on personalities – who said what to whom in what circumstances – and the attempts of the play establishment – variously CPC, Play England, CPPF etc – to engage with that other establishment, that of Government and Lottery/BIG. (Note: ‘establishment’ here is not meant pejoratively, merely descriptively.)

Implicit in this intra-establishment dialogue is belief in a top down approach to securing change; an ‘insiders’ game ‘ – again not meant pejoratively – two establishment increasingly speaking the same language of outputs, outcomes, evidence. I’ve argued before that whatever the merits of evidence, it is not the evidence that will ultimately tip the balance in favour of supporting, as Policy for Play has it, ‘children’s forgotten right to play’.

It’s worth looking a little more closely at what is entailed in having a virtually exclusive focus on making the instrumental, evidential case for play (and much else). To repeat, a focus on evidence shifts, and obscures, profound questions about values to a more neutral, technical sphere of outputs and outcomes, to questions about ‘what works’. An evidential market place is thus created.

As with all markets, trade is facilitated through the creation of a common currency the coinage of which is the heaps of output and outcome data generated by any number of projects, causes and organisations seeking funds and favour. As with all traded currencies, the medium of exchange is neutral and universal. This currency works by not noticing, ironing out, distinctions between different undertakings and endeavours: a local arts project is costed in the same currency units as a play or theatre project. The common coinage comprises, for example, units of obesity reduction, units of enhanced community cohesion, units of enhanced employability and so forth. Submission to this regime results in a form of silencing – the contraction of the space available to speak about, and fight for, activities that are valued in themselves. This represents one aspect of apoliticisation.

The other is in respect of market power. Here, the laws of supply and demand apply. The supply side comprises the causes, endeavours and undertaking that want funds (payment) and favour from the potential purchasers – in this case the national and/or local state. The supply side is fragmented, diverse, often competing – though this is not necessarily admitted – and crowded. In contrast, the demand-side potential purchaser has virtual monopoly control over resources. It has no, or few competitors. This market is therefore demand led. It follows that the supply side, in the main, cannot change the terms of trade, can only submit to them.

Looked at in this way, the trend towards contracting out services is simply a logical step in the marketisation of the civic realm. It has always been the case that organisations funded by the state exercised a degree of self-censorship in comments and criticisms of the funding hand that fed it. But the purchaser/supplier contractural relationship takes this muting of criticism some stages further.   In a further twist to this contraction of the political realm, is Government’s proposed new grant condition that organisations will not be able to use government grants for “activity intended to influence – or attempt to influence – Parliament, government or political parties”.

Two spheres

To get pragmatic – the evidential game is at present the main game in town. To say the game should not be played would be absurd, cutting away such support for play as can be eked out from the national and local state. The danger, however, is to think it’s a game that can ultimately be won, be successful. It cannot. Under current dispensations, there will in the future, as there has been in the past and now, periods of relative plenty, followed by periods of famine. That is an inevitable consequence of operating in a market economy dominated by a monopoly purchaser, a purchaser who determines the terms of trade.

But all this occurs within only one of the potential spheres of endeavour.

A second sphere

But there is more than one sphere, a second sphere. Perhaps it’s time to pay it greater attention: the civic/political realm where debate about values, about the nature of the good life, for children, for adults, can find political voice and power. Here, civic society frames the terms of debate, works to change the terms of trade between it and the state. In this sphere lies the possibility of elevating questions of value to their proper place, to assert that there are foundational values – Liberty, Justice, Play – whose forms of justification lie within belief systems that are impervious to, and dismissive of, the evidential itch.

Parents are a potential key voice in support of play, though considered collectively, many feel themselves under pressures and anxieties to curtail their children’s freedom to roam and play.   But harnassing the parental voice is surely vital.   Whilst he and I may have a different perspective on the question of evidence, Tim Gill usefully comments that:

‘….for this vision [i.e. children’s right to roam and to play] is to become reality, it must resonate with parents. Without their active support, everyone else will lose interest in the topic. The bottom line is this: if parents do not care about their children’s everyday freedoms, why should anyone else?’

The play sector is no stranger to generating wished-for strategies directed towards securing children’s right to play. To the best of my knowledge, it has not considered what a strategy for securing popularly rooted political clout would look like; or indeed taken time to consider whether it’s worth giving it any consideration at all. Surely it is a question worth the posing.

8 responses to “From values to counting: the apoliticisation of play (and much else)

  1. I think that i side with Adrian on this blog. When the CPC and others lobbied for play in the 2000s it was Government we had to lobby. We were successful in that and thus the Lottery and Government funding that followed. After the third year (I think from memory) we (and I think particularly Adrian) started to recognise the need to persuade Parents of the play cause and indeed in the final year of funding Adrian was arguing for a membership organisation. So I feel there is general agreement about the need to bring parents on board. The problem we have now is that the subject of play has been disenfranchised by this administration, thus, with the very limited resources that we have, we are back lobbying Government again.

    What I would agree with totally is that we musn’t forget or underestimate the importance of parent power along the way.

    Like

    • Robin, thanks for commenting. I take your point, but what I’m trying to get to is that what comprises the ‘we’ that is doing the lobbying has no demonstrable, durable, sustained, external support that potentially constitutes a ‘force to be reckoned with’ – something beyond lobbying. Now, it may be that there is in fact no realistic prospect of generating (or unearthing) this external source of energy and force. I do not know. But I think it necessary that we consider what a broad-based political strategy might look like – this, certainly in the first instance, has nothing to do with funding.

      Like

      • OK, parents are important. ut look what happened under the regime of the one who will not be named. Love Outdoor Play. A reekingly middle-class endeavour. The parents we need to reach don’t have £104 per annum to join the NT, don’t have the money for rail fare to Epping forest, etcetera. Playing Out has more reach, and is slightly more declassé, but still.

        Just to needle you guys: Felix Road APG, been going 40 years, tightly integrated into its awesomely multicultural community in Bristol, heaving with 167 children and 25 volunteers. When are we going to recognise the key role of the independently-run* APG as a hub for community development, the liminal** core of a strategy to make the surrounding neighbourhoods, child-friendly and therefore human-friendly??

        *the track record is clear, if the LA, or some tentacled £3rd sector organisation take it over, it loses its ludic mojo…
        **don’t really know what the word means 🙂

        Like

  2. Adrian, thanks for commenting – we need have no fear of gentle disagreement. It could be productive – indeed, we must make it so.

    I hear what you say, but still believe my point holds true, that scant, sustained attention has been given to connecting directly with voters. I’ll say, in passing, that a campaign that rides on the back of a washing powder promotion has perhaps yet to find it’s independent feet. I still think it right to say that ‘Such ‘popular’ support as may exist is fragmentary, intermittent, in no way constituting a political force.’ and that little has been done to change that.

    But what the hell – let it be that you are right, and I am wrong. What I detect is that there is common agreement that, somehow, we must engage voters more directly than hitherto has been the case. How this is to be done is by no means clear, but it must be the focus of attention.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. You should attend this year’s Nellfest16, the annual national playwork conference in Eastbourne. There are some new shoots. Things have moved on since 2010, Bernard.

    Playwork will be reinvigorated…

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m afraid I’ll be in India on the conference date so will miss catching sight of the ‘new shoots’ in Eastbourne. But if there are new shoots it would be good to hear about them, either here – and – on your interesting blog.

      Here’s a provocation, one I shall pursue at some point: is there rather too much focus on playwork? Or to put it another way, does playwork takes up a disproportionate and perhaps distorting amount of space in our endeavours and interests? Or put another way again, it’s not that playwork takes too much time and space, it is that other aspects are not sufficiently prominent.

      Thanks for comment, Arthur, always appreciated.

      Liked by 1 person

      • One of the psychological effects in politics and society is that one mode become the dominant cultural meme in our thinking. This can lead to policy makers equating play with playwork just as much as the playwork field mice might.

        With that in mind, I want to encourage your latter formulation. Lets audit our preconceptions andnot ‘play’ one play field off against another!

        Lets do as you say: [my version]

        Playwork is under-represented in public discourse; other aspects of children’s play needs in the public realm are also under-represented.

        Like

  4. A thought provoking piece, Bernard, as usual. I look forward (I think!) to your review of my book.

    In the meantime, I want to gently disagree with you that ‘(the play sector) has not considered what a strategy for securing popularly rooted political clout would look like’

    Far from ‘a virtually exclusive focus on making the instrumental, evidential case for play’ – as I think you imply – our campaign during the 2000s put a lot of energy into making the popular case for children’s right to play, including some very substantial pitches to parents. This ad, for example, appeared in cinemas and on TV at the height of the campaign,

    while we also featured in double page spreads in the Sun and other tabloids and appeared not just on the Today programme, but on breakfast TV shows quite regularly for a number of years.

    None of this was aimed at the political establishment, but to win the hearts and minds of the public, especially parents, for the reasons that:

    1) policy-makers weren’t terribly interested until we became part of the popular zeitgeist; and
    2) on the government’s own terms, the evidential case was difficult to make. Indeed the most substantial piece of research we commissioned, Stuart and Wendy’s, Play for Change, was a pretty thorough deconstruction of the ‘suppositious “evidence”‘ approach to policy-making – both in general and, in particular, for children’s play.

    I hope that by the time you have finished my book you may come to see that the vehicles for these campaigns may have had the appearance of establishment bodies, (Oliver Lewin even conflated CPC with the ‘bloated Whitehall bureaucracy’) – just as I ditched my denim and boots to don a suit for most of that time – but were, in fact, just alliances of independent-minded play advocates looking for ways to find the government’s ear: for the simple reason that, as you point out, public funding is the lifeblood of most play provision.

    The benefit of hindsight suggests that allowing an establishment body to ‘host’ our efforts was a big mistake, as was giving organisations, rather than individuals, too much sway in the governance arrangements, but I think its a misrepresentation of what was going on during that time to portray it as two parts of the establishment trading with one another.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s