Content uploaded by Monica Nilsson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Monica Nilsson on Apr 15, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by:
[Stockholm University Library]
On:
4 October 2010
Access details:
Access Details: [subscription number 926347096]
Publisher
Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Mind, Culture, and Activity
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653674
Creative Pedagogy of Play—The Work of Gunilla Lindqvist
Monica E. Nilssona
a Stockholm University,
Online publication date: 23 December 2009
To cite this Article Nilsson, Monica E.(2010) 'Creative Pedagogy of Play—The Work of Gunilla Lindqvist', Mind, Culture,
and Activity, 17: 1, 14 — 22
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10749030903342238
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10749030903342238
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17: 14–22, 2010
Copyright © Regents of the University of California
on behalf of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition
ISSN 1074-9039 print / 1532-7884 online
DOI: 10.1080/10749030903342238
HMCA1074-90391532-7884Mind, Culture, and Activity, Vol. 17, No. 1, Nov 2009: pp. 0–0Mind, Culture, and Activity
ARTICLES
Creative Pedagogy of Play—The Work
of Gunilla Lindqvist
Creative Pedagogy of PlayNilsson Monica E. Nilsson
Stockholm University
This article presents the work by the Swedish play scholar Gunilla Lindqvist, particularly what she
calls creative pedagogy of play and playworlds. Creative pedagogy of play is an educational
approach, which advocates the joint participation of children and adults in a collectively created and
shared world of fiction—a playworld. Gunilla Lindqvist’s pedagogy was designed to investigate how
aesthetic activities can influence children’s play as well as the nature of the connections between
play and the aesthetic forms of drama and literature. Lindqvist based her theory on Vygotsky’s theo-
ries of art, play, semiotics, imagination, and creativity. Her main idea is that children develop con-
sciousness in dialogical interactions with adults and peers when encouraged and invited to play in a
fictitious world where reality and imagination are dialectically related. This article is a homage to her
work—it attempts to present her writings through an appreciative and expository fashion.
The work by the Swedish play scholar Gunilla Lindqvist (1995) not only contributes to play
theories and early childhood pedagogy but also provides new perspectives on Vygotsky’s
cultural historical theories of human development. According to Lindqvist, Vygotsky succeeded
in developing a cultural historical theory because he initially studied humans in their relation-
ship to art and literature. According to Lindqvist, his cultural historical theory on cultural signs
is a direct continuation of the esthetic theory in the Psychology of Art (Vygotsky, 1925/1971). In
Creativity and Imagination in Childhood (Vygotsky, 2004), his ideas on art are tied together
with his general thinking. Vygotsky described how we create our conceptions, that is, how we
interpret and express our understanding of the world. Vygotsky described this process as a
dialectical relationship between reproduction and production (creativity), the latter, which he
called imagination—a significant concept in Lindqvist’s work.
Correspondence should be sent to Monica E. Nilsson Department of Didactic Science and Early Childhood
Education, Stockholm University, Stockholm, SE 106 91 Sweden. E-mail: monica.nilsson@did.su.se
Downloaded By: [Stockholm University Library] At: 13:12 4 October 2010
CREATIVE PEDAGOGY OF PLAY 15
Lindqvist takes her point of departure from Vygotsky’s theory of play, which, she points out,
is a theory of play as a creative activity. Lindqvist wants to reinterpret Vygotsky’s play theory,
which, according to her, should be based on his original thoughts in The Psychology of Art and
his inquires into creativity and imagination as the two basic types of activity. According to
Lindqvist, Vygotsky’s ideas give rise to a creative pedagogical approach. She calls her contribution
to such an approach “creative pedagogy of play” and “playworlds.” She investigates how
aesthetic activities can influence children’s play but also the nature of the connections between
play and the aesthetic forms of drama and literature. Creative pedagogy of play is a pedagogical
activity for daycare centers, preschool and school where children and adults participate in a
jointly created and shared world of fiction—a playworld.
My intention with this article is to give a window into Gunilla Lindqvist’s thoughts and ideas
on play, creative pedagogy of play and playworlds. For this purpose I have interviewed and
corresponded with Jan Lindqvist and two of Gunilla Lindqvist’s former students (Annica
Löfdahl and Inga-Lill Emilsson), both presently holding positions as faculty members at the
University of Karlstad.
Gunilla Lindqvist was a professor of education at the University of Karlstad in Sweden. At
the time of the millennium she became afflicted with severe dementia. She is now hospitalized
and unable to work.
Her background is in education, philosophy, and sociology. She held a position at the University
of Lund before moving to the University of Karlstad in 1975. Gunilla Lindqvist introduced several of
Vygotsky’s works in Sweden by having them translated into Swedish. For example, Imagination and
Creativity in Childhood, which was written in 1930, was translated and published in 1995 in Sweden.
Before that it had only been translated into Italian—in 1972. In 1999 Lindqvist organized translations
and publications of Vygotsky’s textbook Educational Psychology, first published in 1926.
Her theory was developed in close collaboration with her husband, Jan Lindqvist, who also
held a faculty position at the University of Karlstad. His field was drama and language/literature.
Jan Lindqvist describes how the theory of creative pedagogy of play is the fruit of their combin-
ing interests and experiences in developmental psychology, education, literature and drama.
Lindqvist (hereafter Lindqvist refers to Gunilla Lindqvist) became particularly interested in
Vygotsky’s work on art, imagination, and creativity, which was, according to Jan, a result of
their close collaboration and continuous conversations and discussions. As an anecdote, Jan
describes how he used to play with their son—applying his dramatic skills—and how his wife
became intrigued by this. A tradition was established where Jan used to read Vygotsky’s texts
out loud while Gunilla did her interpretations by jotting down comments and ideas in a note-
book. This, Jan explains, was the beginning of Lindqvist’s (1995) play theory.
A CULTURAL APPROACH TO PLAY
Lindqvist refers to Vygotsky when stating that a child plays in order to satisfy needs and
motives. Thus, play is not about pleasure or surplus energy, which was a common belief at the
time of Vygotsky’s research and is still a commonly held view. Play, according to Vygotsky, is
a complex phenomenon that entails higher mental processes of cognition, volition, and emotion.
Moreover, Vygotsky perceived play as the most significant source of development of conscious-
ness about the world. Thus, “play is the source of development and creates the zone of proximal
Downloaded By: [Stockholm University Library] At: 13:12 4 October 2010
16 NILSSON
development” and in play “a child always behaves beyond his average age, above his daily
behavior; in play it is though he were a head taller than himself” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 102). Play,
according to Vygotsky, is a dynamic interplay between the child’s inner world (thoughts and
feelings) and the external world. Play creates a fictitious situation in which actions are carried
out. Thus children’s play is imaginative, that is, a creative process of interpretation in action
where, through fantasy, a real situation is given a new and different meaning. Meaning
dominates play and is the focal point in the dynamics between idea and action. Because play acts
out meaning, play reflects reality in a deep sense and can never be confused with a realistic
performance of an action. The child’s capacity to create an imaginary or fictitious situation in
play makes play a vehicle for developing abstract thinking.
Following Vygotsky, Lindqvist asserts that play, of course, also is about pleasure. Play is plea-
surable in at least two ways. One is that the child follows “the law of least resistance,” that is, the
child does what he or she wants to. But the child also follows the “greatest resistance law” by sub-
ordinating to rules so that the distance from spontaneous input seems to constitute the road to
optimal satisfaction in play. This is a paradox. The form of play (the rules) and the master of the
form of the play seem to give the child pleasure and excitement. In play the child is capable of
mastering her actions and remaining independent of the adults. Lindqvist makes a connection
between this and Vygotsky’s writings about art and aesthetical emotions and reactions. Lindqvist
states that, play, as well as art, is an aesthetical form capable of producing an aesthetic emotion.
This emotion is different from real emotion, which has the capacity to create new and complex
actions, as well as transcend everyday actions and influence the course of events.
Creativity includes processes of transformation, exaggeration, and shrinkage. These are also
features of play. Lindqvist writes that according to Vygotsky, dramatic and literary forms
dominate a child’s creative processes. Drama, according to Vygotsky, is related to play. Thus,
play has a close affinity to art. Both activities contain two coexisting levels: a “real” level—
where the action is carried out—and a “conditional” level, where the situation is deliberately
fictitious. The trick is to keep these two levels alive simultaneously: to be in the fiction and to
know it is fiction, to control the duplicity in the actions. This gives play a particular rich seman-
tic content.
Lindqvist is critical of how Vygotsky’s successors came to interpret his theory of play.
Vygotsky emphasized the dialectics expressed through the relation between the adult world and
the child’s world and also between the will and the emotion. She writes that Leontiev sees no
tension between the adult world and the child’s world and that play, for him, is about a child’s
inability to acquire adult roles. When a child can’t perform adult actions he instead creates a fic-
titious situation. This situation, Lindqvist writes, is, for Leontiev, the most significant sign of
play. Thus, play is the sign of the child’s inferiority, and hence play is in fact an infantile activity
because, as Lindqvist states, from this perspective, the child will gradually grow into the adult
world and play is directed toward the future. Moreover, she claims that the implication is a stress
on reproduction (of adult roles) at the expense of creativity. Therefore, she attempts to reinter-
pret Vygotsky’s play theory, based on his original thoughts in The Psychology of Art, and his
inquires into creativity and imagination. According to Lindqvist, Vygotsky’s ideas give rise to a
creative pedagogical approach instead of an instrumental one. This is because Vygotsky shows
how children interpret and perform their experiences by creating new meaning and how emo-
tions characterize their interpretations, that is, how emotion and thought unite in the process of
knowledge construction.
Downloaded By: [Stockholm University Library] At: 13:12 4 October 2010
CREATIVE PEDAGOGY OF PLAY 17
Based on Vygotsky’s theories, Lindqvist argues for a cultural approach to play—in contrast
to the psychoanalytical or cognitive. The psychoanalytical and the cognitive approaches disre-
gard the significant role of the adult in influencing play. The child either confirms his or her
knowledge through play or processes inner conflicts. In both cases it is assumed that children
should be left alone in their play, perhaps offered passive support by providing play material,
and so on. Instead, Lindqvist argues that in order to describe the relationship between play and
culture, there is a need for a comprehensive cultural theory of play. Thus, for Lindqvist it is
important to search for a view on culture, which makes it possible to understand and explain the
dynamic connection between play and culture. As a consequence, Lindqvist opposes a clear-cut
distinction between the concept of culture in an anthropological sense and culture as fine art.
These two conceptualizations can and should be combined and thus transcended in order to
understand the connections between play and art forms such as dance, music, lyrics and drama.
Understanding culture in this way would impact our understanding of play.
Lindqvist’s theory of play and her creation of an alternative pedagogical activity indicate a
critique of present practices is preschools and schools—a topic explored in the next section.
CRITICAL OF SCHOOL AND PRESCHOOL
The Swedish preschool has a reputation of being progressive and child centered. But Lindqvist
asks why in reality play is not practiced in the Swedish preschool, despite the rhetoric that play
is important and the concept of “free play” is almost a mantra to Swedish preschool teachers.
Instead of respecting children’s play, the activity is based on the daily routines in combination
with teaching “adult knowledge” and norms to the children. Lindqvist’s explanation for this
situation is that the preschool pedagogy is not built on a cultural and aesthetical view but on
psychological theories where art and culture are not emphasized because the creative subjects
are given a subordinated role. The Swedish preschool is founded on a psychology-based theory
where play is considered the child’s solitary activity—a psychology free from societal and
cultural context. Thus, Lindqvist is critical not only of the preschool but of the school as well.
Her main concern, though, is preschool, which she claims is an institution controlled by time
and order. The linear way of perceiving time is in conflict with a child’s subjective experience of
time and space. This underlines the implicit view on childhood—that it has no status or value in
itself and is just a step on the way to adulthood. Moreover, children are exposed to the adults’
need for order. The established order is the adult way of order. This order is there to protect
children from what adults consider chaos, anarchy, lack of goal directedness, and unpredictability.
Instead of managing order and time, Lindqvist asserts, the teacher’s task should be to make the
students interested in the unknown, to make the familiar unfamiliar, and to facilitate new inter-
pretations and meaning making. Children and young people need to perceive their reality from
different perspectives in order to avoid belief in unambiguous truths. They need to be creative.
Lindqvist’s recipe is an aesthetical view on pedagogy. She argues for a pedagogy uniting
consciousness, playfulness, and solidarity. Lindqvist claims there is a need for a comprehensive
theory about the role of the aesthetical subjects in child development and an approach to play
where the relationship between imagination and a child’s abstract thought processes is the focus
of attention. Lindqvist’s pedagogical activity, that is, the creative pedagogy of play is a manifestation
of such an approach.
Downloaded By: [Stockholm University Library] At: 13:12 4 October 2010
18 NILSSON
CREATIVE PEDAGOGY OF PLAY
Creative pedagogy of play is the result of an interdisciplinary collaboration and mix of fields
such as drama, literature, music, dance, art, and pedagogy. Compared to the traditional,
fragmented way of applying aesthetical subjects in Swedish educational settings, Lindqvist
advocates a holistic approach. She wants the entire activity in the preschool and school to be
based on a cultural approach. According to Lindqvist, there seem to be two aesthetical forms of
play. One is connected to music, poetry, and rhythmic movement. This form takes its starting
point in the young child’s poetic and rhythmic relationship to objects and language. The second
form is connected to literary forms and originates from the basic pattern in folktales. This form
can be found in children’s play and stories from the age of 3 but also in children’s literature. The
plot dominates in this aesthetical form of play. The two forms constitute a basis for the didactical
activity of Lindqvist’s creative pedagogy of play.
In many of her publications, Lindqvist provides rich and concrete examples of creative peda-
gogy of play projects. The projects are always based on a theme important in children’s lives,
for example, fear, marginalization, and racism. Lindqvist collaborated with preschools, day care
centers, leisure time centers, museums, and schools. The projects were often intergenerational:
Not only was the older children’s capacity for acting in a theater play combined with the
younger children’s play that developed into conscious dramatizations, but adult participation has
always been crucial.
A project from the aesthetic form of children’s play that Lindqvist calls “music, poetry and
rhythmic movement” was about rhyme. Lindqvist explains that the tension between fantasy and
reality can be found in the ability of rhyme to fortify a child’s understanding of reality. The
deviation in the rhyme from what is correct and well known strengthens the child’s knowledge
about reality because it creates a contrast and hence enhances imagination. Lindqvist reasons
that it is through imagination that children secure their understanding of the world and reality.
Conscious deviation from, or a break with, reality that can be found in nursery rhymes is a
phenomenon that can also be seen in play and art. That is, the discontinuity between the object
and its features gives the object a new meaning, that is, imagination. Lindqvist emphasizes the
significance of “anarchistic” rhymes and poems. These kinds of writing question order, turn
things upside down and create a sense of magic, important to children who are inferior and live
in a “dangerous” world. However, most projects are built on dramatization where playworld is
the significant concept.
PLAYWORLDS
The aesthetic form of play that Lindqvist discusses in terms of literary forms, such as folktale
and children’s literature, has three important concepts: (a) playworld, (b) narrative and plot, and
(c) characters. A playworld is a collectively—by children and adults—created and shared world
of fiction. A playworld combines a child’s holistic emotional experience with an aesthetical
relation to reality (Hakkarainen, 2004). To create a shared playworld adults create figures, char-
acters, and plots. The plot is developed in dialogue with the children. The adults get inspiration
from contemporary and classic literature. The idea is not to take a book and then perform it, but
to let the book inspire creation of a playworld where children and adults can play together. The
Downloaded By: [Stockholm University Library] At: 13:12 4 October 2010
CREATIVE PEDAGOGY OF PLAY 19
story in the book provides children and adults with a common experience to enable them under-
stand each other more quickly and to be able to enter into the world of the story or the fairy tale.
Building up a playworld is a long process, where play is the center, not the result. The process
goes through different phases such as creating roles and characters, researching and bringing out the
foundation for the playworld, and creating the story’s plot. The play environment is important, but it
is through their physical presence that the living characters make the playworld come alive.
In her publications, Lindqvist describes a variety of drama and play projects where play-
worlds are created. One of the projects, which comprises the basis for her thesis, was called
“Loneliness and Togetherness.” It was built around a theme of fear. Two characters were
created. One was a boy, Rasmus, and the other was Fear. The theme starts with a scene where
Rasmus is scared of what is hiding under his bed when he tries to go to sleep. Fear (the sense of
fear personified) is lying under the bed. In the encounter between Rasmus and Fear it is clear
that both of them are scared, but Fear is more frightened than Rasmus. Fear ends up next to
Rasmus in the bed and Rasmus asks if she feels better now when they are together and next to
each other. Fear is not entirely convinced and asks the children if this place is a safe place. The
children answer yes. They then continue to perform and explore fear in a variety of ways,
expressing thoughts and emotions connected to fear. For example, it is possible to take a ride on
a ghost train passing monsters, ghosts, and a variety of scary creatures. When Fear visits the
preschool next time she brings scary (artificial) things such as snakes, spiders, and rats.
Lindqvist explains what happened in the fear-theme. There is a dynamic relationship to the
emotion. It is the inner emotion of Rasmus, which is being expressed, and this emotion has a
dual nature. It is both the inner experience of being scared and the external objects of fear, which
scare him. The play takes place on two levels, partly the dialogue between Rasmus and Fear,
where Rasmus wants to control his fear, and partly between Fear and the children where for the
play they have a decisive role. Their role is to pull Fear out and make her visible. It is the adults
who act out the characters and it is the children who are given the role of being supportive to the
role figures. In this way the children become participants and can create a common world or
fiction. It is the emotion that creates meaning in the whole situation. Even Rasmus’s bed has
been permeated by Fear. The children played in and under the bed for several weeks, Lindqvist
notes, as the bed was charged with the meaning of Fear.
Lindqvist argues that one could perceive the Fear character as a metaphor for the dynamic
relationship between imagination and reality. The inner emotion is taking shape and in that way
the individual (emotion) and the social (the materialized) side unites within the same body. In
order for imagination to develop, a relationship between the internal emotion and the external
world is established. According to Lindqvist this is how Vygotsky describes the process of
imagination, that is, as a dynamics between image making and materialization. The performance
of Fear is so appealing to the children because it addresses their real-life concerns and issues.
The children’s emotions are touched, and it is their interpretations and imaginations that move
the story forward. In addition, their interpretations are a precondition for the play to develop.
Lindqvist connects this to Vygotsky’s statement that art is the emotion’s social form, which she
states is obvious in the play about Fear. In turn, the play about Fear is about the emotions in a
double sense because it is an emotion that is being expressed.
The tale Who Will Comfort Toffle? by Finnish-Swedish author Tove Jansson introduced
another perspective. Loneliness was depicted as the feeling of being worthless and denied an
existence. In the tale the children encountered a world filled with meaning. It is a world with a
Downloaded By: [Stockholm University Library] At: 13:12 4 October 2010
20 NILSSON
struggle for freedom and the right to exist as small, scared, and different. It is a world where fear
is embedded in life and where the characters’ kindness creates the basis for companionship and
tolerance. In this imaginative world the children experienced Toffle’s fear when encountering
Groke in the fictitious woods copied from the book onto a plastic sheet with a felt-tip pen and
displayed on the wall. On their daily outdoor field trip, they also got to meet and interact with
Toffle and Groke who were personified by their preschool teachers. Once there, they found a
message enclosed in a bottle asking for help from someone called Miffle, who would later
become Toffle’s best friend.
Lindqvist explains. Who Will Comfort Toffle? was shaped in a way that generated play
among all the children. According to Lindqvist, the aesthetical form of the book played a role by
making it possible to dramatize the characters and the plot from the book. Thus, the dramatic
enactment gave life to the plot so that the children could enter into the Moomin Valley, where
Toffle and Miffle are, and influence the dialogue with the main characters. The tension between
threat and companionship in the story gives rise to dynamics in the plot and enables imagination
and play to thrive. The younger children interpret this tension in terms of hunting and thrill. The
older turn the chase on Groke into advanced play. When Groke eventually becomes their friend,
they have an influence on her, so that good and evil become blurred.
Lindqvist gives some general advice about creating playworlds. It is important that the
adults’ “performance” is carried out as a dialogue with the children. It too often and easily
happens that the adults dominate. However, as Lindqvist shows, being in role enables the adults
to find new ways to relate to the children, less framed by the institutional traditions. To be in
role provides the teachers with a sense of freedom, that is, “to be in role liberates the teachers
from the traditional roles and the institutional language game so linked to the teachers’ role in
preschool and school” (Lindqvist, 1995, p. 264, my translation).
Moreover, it is important to choose narratives where children can easily move in and out of roles.
The narrative should be open, giving the children opportunities to follow the plot and influence the
story. The children should be given the opportunity to influence the story through explicit actions
but also by choosing and reflecting on different alternatives. The children should gain a critical
creative approach, and thus the situations and roles should be contradictory. In this way the children
are given the chance to be authors, directors, actors in and of the playworld. Lindqvist (1996) lists
the following as the most important results of her empirical studies of playworlds:
A shared Playworld supports the development of children’s play. There is a need to create cultural
context that the children and adults can relate to in their joint play. The joint fantasy “world” must
also be physical—a real play environment.
In order for the plot to develop, there is a need for a rich content, a theme that emotionally
touches and is interesting to the children as well as the adults. Children often have a dramatic
relationship with their surroundings in that their narratives and play contain basic conflicts.
The basic conflicts have to be woven into a dramatic text, otherwise the joint play runs the risk to
be reduced to a simple “game of tag,” lacking a plot or intrigue. It is the dramatic quality of the text,
which determines if the joint play will develop. Thus there is a need for literary texts with multiple
possibilities for interpretation.
Adults need to dramatize the plot in order for the play to develop. In particular, when acting in
dialogue with the children, it is the adults’ role characters, which give life to the play and push the
children into the fiction. The teachers become mediators and challenge the children’s zone of proximal
development. (pp. 82–83, Lindqvist’s italics, my translation)
Downloaded By: [Stockholm University Library] At: 13:12 4 October 2010
CREATIVE PEDAGOGY OF PLAY 21
CONCLUSION
Gunilla Lindqvist’s work is innovative and challenging in several ways. She is critical of the
traditional play theories, which separate and emphasize either emotion or cognition but which
also fail to account for the significance of culture in play. Culture for Lindqvist goes beyond the
dichotomy of culture defined within fine art versus anthropology. She searches for a connection
between play and culture where artistic forms such as movement, sound, and drama are natural
and original components.
She is critical of the way play has been theorized in cultural-historical activity theory. She
presents a unique and, in parts, controversial interpretation of Vygotsky’s work, in particular his
play theory. Through her own play theory she illuminates aspects of Vygotsky’s work, particu-
larly the significance of imagination and creativity, which until today has not been the emphasis
in CHAT research. In this regard she was an innovator ahead of her time.
Her reinterpretation of Vygotsky’s play theory has an expressed purpose of designing, imple-
menting, and studying a pedagogy in which adults assume a creative approach to children’s
play. As such she opens up doors to novel interpretations as well as novel design of pedagogical
activities and tools. Thus, her reinterpretation, particularly its emphasis on the creative quality of
play expressed through the design and implementation of her “pedagogy of creative play,” paves
the way for a cultural approach to play with implications for the practice in preschools as well as
schools. A particularly novel contribution is the active role, which she ascribes to the adults in
play together with joint creation and enactment of playworlds. This reinterpretation with its
emphasis on the creative quality is unique among contemporary Western European and American
theories of play.
In times like the present, when learning is approached very much in terms of preparation and
training for tests, Lindqvist’s work is provocative, yet liberating. Her pedagogy takes the point
of departure in the child’s need and interest, not in the need of the adult world to promote the
child’s learning and development in terms of adult-determined developmental goals by colonial-
izing children’s play. Instead of perceiving adult knowledge, experience, or developmental stage
as the teleology of children’s play, which is common in Western European and American
theories of play, she stresses the intrinsic aspects of play as valuable in a child’s present and
future life. She prefers to talk about meaning making and development of consciousness, rather
than learning and cognitive development. Why then has her theory and pedagogy not received
the recognition it deserves? One explanation might be that, due to illness, Lindqvist’s career as a
researcher was very short—her thesis was completed in 1995 and she became ill in the begin-
ning of 2000. Another reason might be that developmental effects in children were not studied
systematically in the playworlds. Instead, Lindqvist focused her research on understanding the
connection between play and culture, mainly drama and literature, with the aim of developing a
creative pedagogy of play. Nevertheless, some of these gaps are starting to be filled.
Lindqvist’s work has also inspired development of different kinds of playworld projects,
shaped by socio cultural conditions, around the world. Teams in Finland, Japan, the United
States, Serbia, and Sweden are currently, separately, and in conjunction setting up playworld
projects for investigation. What these studies have in common is that they build on Lindqvist’s
play theory and test her pedagogy, but they also strive to develop and go beyond what Lindqvist
created. One main interest is to deepen the understanding of the role of imagination and creativity
in human conduct and the relationship between cognition, emotion and body. By performing
Downloaded By: [Stockholm University Library] At: 13:12 4 October 2010
22 NILSSON
playworlds of different kinds these studies also evoke new questions such as how to recognize
and appreciate children’s diverse everyday cultures, for example, peer cultures or popular media
culture, both significant aspects of children’s lives. Hence, the legacy of Lindqvist’s work is
beginning to make its mark. Her work inspires and challenges our understanding and interpretation
of socio-cultural and cultural historical theory in general and Vygotsky’s work on play in particular.
This in turn comes with implications for development of meaningful activities for children,
youths, and adults.
REFERENCES
Hakkarainen, P. (2004). Narrative learning in the Fifth Dimension. Outlines: Critical Social Studies, 6, 5–20.
Lindqvist, G. (1995). Lekens estetik. En didaktisk studie om lek och kultur i förskolan [The aesthetics of play. A didactic
study of play and culture in preschools]. Forskningsrapport 95: 12, SKOBA, Högskolan i Karlstad. Acta Universitatis
Upsaliensis. Uppsala Studies in Education 62. Stockholm/Sweden: Almqvist & Wiksell International.
Lindqvist, G. (1996). Lekens möjligheter (The possibilities of play). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Vygotsky, L. (1971). The psychology of art. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1925)
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology,
42(1), 7–97.
Downloaded By: [Stockholm University Library] At: 13:12 4 October 2010
