Perspectives from History: The Ancestry of Play
- legalloudecalice
- 12 hours ago
- 4 min read
What is the historical backstory of play? As lifestyles changed with modern times, so did the essence of playfulness. Looking back at our ancestors, it appears that play has been around as long as humans have existed, so… why? In hunter-gatherer societies, it is suggested, the use of play was a powerful social architecture; one that shaped cooperation, egalitarianism, autonomy, and learning. For most of our evolutionary existence, humans were hunter-gatherers, and in our timeline, play was not just a sideline; it was a way of life.
In Gray’s thesis, it is argued that the rules of play are the very first rules we attain in social life. In a typical pickup game (one where people join or leave freely, where structure is negotiated and everyone abides by shared rules), we observe the same dynamics that stabilised egalitarian hunter-gatherer groups. Participation in these games is voluntary, power is contextual, and hierarchy dissolves if it threatens the collective experience.
This is not just a metaphor; it’s structurally intertwined in development. Voluntary participation reduces forced roles and obedience; consensus-based rule negotiation means that power is co-created, not held by an individual or certain group. Freedom to quit compels mutual respect; a game with no players is no longer a game at all, it collapses. From this perspective, play is a governing logic, a spontaneous and evolving system that does not require coercion. If one considers leadership models in modern professional life, the same dynamics don’t seem to emerge from leaders' controlling, directly influential expectations.
This literature reminds us that play is not just for children. Hunter-gatherer adults would engage in humour, games, playful cooperation, and rituals. It was not considered ‘a break from work’, but a reframed version of work; a type of learning through doing, practicing social negotiation, experiencing social interaction without power dynamics, and the stabilisation of group identity. Humour and play work against dominance and conflict, fostering cooperation that could adapt to changes in the environment and surpass the unpredictable. In modern coaching practice and organisational development, these qualities are still encouraged through true engagement and the ability to connect in body, through relations, and with creativity.
As well as a social mechanism, play was a learning engine. Playful activity is self-conducted and motivated, structured by mutually understood rules, and is a mentally engaging activity that is free of stress. Modern psychology associates these conditions with deep learning, creativity, and adaptability, not the use of external rewards, but amplification of agency, mutual regulation, and a shared purpose. Here is a suggestion, a counter-narrative to performance-driven cultures dominated by KPIs and outcomes; recognising the efficiency of our ancestors through their use of play and transposing that into the modern workplace is exactly how to achieve the fluidity, adaptability, and relational responsiveness required in said workplaces.
What happens when play disappears?
If play is foundational, what are the psychological, social, and organisational consequences in its absence?
In modern systems, risk aversion is more prevalent than experimentation; without time or resources, it feels dangerous. There is a striving throughout the hierarchy for performance, dimming the space for curiosity and trial and error, and the system is built to support outcomes more than the process it takes to reach them. It may be ‘efficient’, tasks still get done, but the relational intelligence that is key in sustaining social systems is missing or diminished. The structures obtained and understood through play build social life more robustly than hierarchy, celebrating collaboration and emotional intelligence, using them as tools and not as a hindrance. The moment a workplace is swarmed with looming hierarchical demand, the freedom for social participation and collective, autonomic learning collapses.
Play is not just for children. It’s a crucible of social existence, the engine of collective intelligence, and the blueprint for cooperation. To create workplaces that are more than just efficient, that are human, the first task is relearning how to play.
From a depth-psychology perspective, play is symbolic. It’s one of the few socially sanctioned spaces where the psyche can move freely between conscious intention and unconscious material. When we play, we suspect the ego’s control enough for imagination, instinct, and the shadowed parts of the self to emerge without threat. Hunter-gatherer play was not just about skill rehearsal or social bonding; it was a ritualised dialogue between the ego and uncertainty, ambiguity, and the unknown. Systems that eliminate play repress psychic material; what is not allowed to surface through play emerges in conflict, domination, and burnout. Play functions as a collective psychological regulator that softens tension before it can transform into pathology. Modern organisations that pride themselves on seriousness may unknowingly be cultivating shadow dynamics like games of power, passive aggression, and disengagement, purely because there is no space for symbolic expression. Play is not the opposite of depth; it’s one of the few remaining ways to access it.
For the full article, published in The American Journal of Play, Volume 1, 2009, follow this link:
Follow The Heretic for conversations about the history of human behaviour and why it still matters in current cultures
Comments