Jewish ethics and play: the exaltation of the possible.

Jewish ethics and play: the exaltation of the possible. It is essential to understand that a constant tension between two diametrically opposed concerns--preserving and betraying--is intrinsic to spiritual life. (Rabbi Nilton Bonder) The best way is that you grasp one thing, yet you must not let go of the other. (Ecclesiastes) Although there is always a great temptation to do so, it isimpossible to think of ethics as complete and perfect. Even as wesurrender to an ethical system, as we always must, we do so playfully. We view ethics as both real and not real, and in doing so, wetemporarily give up the rationalistic demand for consistency. Ideals arealways imperfect ideals. In embracing playfulness, we experience newpleasures and freedoms. We seamlessly move from the world of play to theworld of the player (and back again). In play, we grant ourselves and others the needed liberty toexperience the world from different perspectives. Normal constraints arerelaxed. Everyday points of view are challenged. New values, beliefs,and desires emerge. Responses become varied, paradoxical, andcomplicated. We stay with our emotions and stop hiding from them. Wetolerate and welcome differences. We develop more sophisticated tastes,nuanced sensitivities, and mature emotions. Over time, we discover that play is a way of being in the worldmore lightly and less permanently, yet more profoundly and comfortably.In play, we discover new purposes, choices, modes of being, and newopportunities. More open ways of interacting with others suddenly become availableto us. More honest communication is possible. According to thepsychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott, one of play's all-time greatestadvocates, "Playing has a place and a time. It is not inside ...Nor is it outside ... Playing facilitates growth and therefore health;playing leads into group relationships; play can be a form ofcommunication ..." (Winnicott 1971, p. 41). Dialogue anddialectical thinking become a way of life. Creativity is enhanced.Imagination is embraced. Deeper layers of meaning are revealed. In play, we hold on to our old selves less tightly. We take morerisks. We move to the edge of our own capabilities and consciousness. Weenter what one psychologist has dubbed a state of "flow"(Csikszentmihalyi 2003). We push and challenge ourselves and each other.We begin to experiment more, and we realize that to take ourselves moreseriously, we have to take ourselves less seriously first. A tiny gapbetween the past and the future opens. Identities loosen. Transitionsbecome possible. The promise of growth and transcendence isstrengthened. It is through play that we evolve. New and challenging ways ofinterpreting and making meaning in the world are adopted. Perceptionsare widened. New connections are made, and old ones are seen asobsolete. More complex identities emerge to subsume older and more simpleones. We are still who we always were, only better. Play is evocativeand transformative: Through play we learn that all perspectives and behaviors belong to categories and that these categories can be manipulated. They can support each other (science and discovery), transform each other (art), or cancel each other out (comedy) ... When we are able to step back from one categorical level to see and play with it from another, we begin the process of transformation. (Gordon and Esbjorn-Hargens 2007) The content and authority of ethics derives from legitimate andopen dialogue. It is a process that one chooses (or not) to participatein. Such a process--to work effectively--must recognize its ownlimitations and imperfections. Paradoxically, it must come to recognizethat its own ideals are only imperfect ideals. Whatever we agree totoday will become outdated and constraining over time. However brilliantand insightful we are now, no one can anticipate what the future willbring. It is because of all of this that no matter how important ethicsare to the quality of our lives and no matter how permanent we think ourethics to be now, we must learn to approach and embrace our own ethicsin a playful and tentative way; as simultaneously real and unreal. Beyond the traditional perspective This is not how we traditionally think and talk about ethics inpersonal or organizational life nor how we teach ethics in the classroom(and beyond). Typically, we think of ethics as a fixed and completesystem of rules and/or principles. Rules that we are bound to followregardless of the circumstances, categorical imperatives. Our attitudetoward ethics is usually not playful but obedient, serious, andreverent. It is we who serve ethics and not the other way around. We are taught that there is always a right and wrong answer toevery ethical quandary, and such answers are not dependent on thecontext or the circumstances in which we find ourselves. They are notcontingent on our mode of interpretation and understanding. The answersto ethical questions do not rely on own consciousness but are somehowfree-floating, part of the furniture of the universe. "If Idon't know what to do, I can always ask an authority figure and heor she will tell me what to do." We are taught to serve ethics withcomplete devotion and an unusual singleness of mind. Play, in sharp contrast to ethics, is seen as a juvenile activity.It is something we outgrow over time. Children and adolescents areallowed and even encouraged to play, but as we mature, culture becomesmore constraining and less tolerant of its playful deviants. Over time,one is expected to make permanent choices and final commitments. Forsure, recreation is still seen as a necessary form of relaxation andfun, but one must draw a sharp line between her vocation and avocation,and between work (reality) and play (fantasy). From this traditional perspective, mixing ethics and play creates astrange and dangerous hybrid. To traditionalists of every bent,approaching ethics playfully sounds suspiciously more like convenientlyabandoning them altogether than deepening our attachment to them. Thosewho raise questions with regard to conventional ethics are generally notviewed as trying to repair and improve upon ethics but as weirdoutliers, out of touch with reality. In fact, it is true that those who raise questions may turn out tobe weird outliers or worse, but they may also turn out to be scientists,poets, artists, philosophers, business men and women, musicians,engineers of renown who have much to contribute to the world and to ourown understanding of ourselves and what we together might become. Theyoften turn out to be the catalysts for a kind of growth that benefitseveryone. If we can tolerate and accept them long enough, they mayprovide us with new paradigms and valuable ways of looking at the world.Every ethical system is imperfect and therefore demands on occasion, atleast, that we violate it. Defining play James March, one of the world's leading experts ondecision-making, defines playfulness as follows: Playfulness is the deliberate, temporary relaxation of rules in order to explore the possibility of alternative rules. When we are playful, we challenge the necessity of consistency. In effect, we announce--in advance--our rejection of the usual objections to behavior that does not fit the standard model of intelligence. (March 1988, p. 261) (1) According to March's definition, play is not antithetical toreason and law, rather play and reason stand in a complementaryrelationship to each other. In March's view, play is essential to afull understanding of intelligence broadly conceived. It is true that to get where we want to go, where we already havegood reasons to go, a technology of rational decision-making issufficient and play is unnecessary. However, it is when we don'tknow what we really want, when our future is open, that play becomesessential to the decision-making process. It is only when we come to recognize and admit a kind ofexistential ignorance concerning our values and ideals, what thephilosopher James Carse has called a "learned ignorance"(Carse 2008, p. 16), that we can adopt a more experimental and tentativeapproach to our own selves. We temporarily relax rules to explore a newand higher-order set of rules. In adopting a technology of rational decision-making, we assume aset of stable, fixed, and well-ordered preferences. The relevantquestion is: Which of several possible known paths is the most efficientone to get to this fixed destination? In other words, a technology ofrational decisionmaking asks: What is the cheapest way of satisfyingcurrent desires? This is often the correct question to ask but notalways. March's point is that decision-making can be alternativelyframed in an altogether different way as an opportunity for testing andexperimenting with these very preferences and desires. Regardless ofcost and efficiencies, what kinds of desires and end-states are reallyworth pursuing in the first place? That is, which of my severaldesires--upon experimenting with them--are really desirable? Whichvalues does experience teach us are truly valuable? March's viewrepresents a dramatically radical (even if underappreciated) expansionof how decision-making is theorized and thought about. Here is how James March summarizes his view: Playfulness is a natural outgrowth of our standard view of reason. A strict insistence on purpose, consistency, and rationality limits our ability to find new purposes. Play relaxes that insistence to allow us to act "unintelligently" or "irrationally", or "foolish" to explore alternative ideas of possible purposes and alternative concepts of behavioral consistency. And it does this while maintaining our basic commitment to the necessity of intelligence. (March 1988, p. 261) Decision-making is no longer imagined solely as a one-way street inwhich we economically pursue pre-determined goals. March insists on amuch broader conception of human intelligence. According to his enlargedvision, decision-making might also come to be seen as an opportunity toexplore, test, and expand goals. In this way, decision-making can becomea profound learning experience and a significant opportunity for ethicalgrowth and moral development, carrying us gracefully beyond the statusquo of our currently held beliefs, actions, values, habits, andidentities. As the great Jewish philosopher and theologian Martin Buberhas aptly stated, "play is the exaltation of the possible." An ethics of play Emphasizing the central role of play for human development, thepsychologist Jean Piaget once wrote, "Play is the answer to thequestion, How does anything new ever come about?" (as quoted byElkind 2007, p. 3, emphasis added). But, if we are to begin to play withethics and to hold on to inherited ethical systems more lightly in thehope of joyfully discovering new possibilities, as this paper suggestswe ought to, it is useful to begin to think more carefully andsystematically about how to proceed. In other words, if we are to playwith ethics, Is there not also a need for an ethics of play? And, if so,What might such an ethics include? In this section, we examine thesequestions in detail. Respect the past Novel responses and playful tactics make sense only against abackdrop of meaning and purpose. In embracing play, the very firstprinciple is a respect for traditions, rules, and rituals of the past.No matter how playful one becomes it is impossible to tear oneself awayfrom one's own history. Everyone is a product of the past and willalways remain so. The political philosopher Michael Walzer is dead-on when he warns,"There is no such thing as choosing from scratch; there are noabsolute beginnings" (Walzer 2004, p. 13). We are born into aparticular family, place, epoch, nation, and religion. We are born maleor female, white or black, rich or poor. We inherit an ethical tradition(or traditions) through birthright. We learn to speak a specificlanguage with its own vocabulary and grammar. Our first responsibility then is to protect the accumulated moraland social capital, the hardware, and software that we ourselves exploiton a daily basis but to which we have made no contributions. Just as thefirst ethical rule for medical doctors is "do no harm," so toofor everyone. This entails reviving many traditional values in a veryliteral way like honoring parents and the elderly, accepting what is,appreciating the gifts we have received, and adopting a learned patiencetoward the accumulated wisdom of our forebears. Whatever we grow intotomorrow, we will always remain creatures rooted in and dependent upon aparticular past and a unique history. Acknowledge contingency Even as we respect the past, we must never idolize it. History is ahappenstance. It all could have happened differently. While at somelevel everyone knows this, it is difficult to acknowledge contingency ona regular basis. It is hard, nearly impossible, for me, as a born Jew,to imagine that I could have been born as a Christian or Muslim, just asfor many others it is inconceivable that they might have been born intoa Jewish family. Nevertheless, this is exactly what an ethics of playentails. Acknowledge contingency. Imagine what it might be like to besomeone else, to have been born into the world at another time and in astrange place with a different body-shape, skin color, and analternative history, perspective, and set of values. In this vein, the late Richard Rorty has noted, "moralconsciousness [is] historically conditioned, a product as much of timeand chance as of political or aesthetic consciousness" (Rorty 1989,p. 30). Acknowledging this kind of pervasive contingency, however, ispsychologically demanding. It is almost as if we are abandoning not onlyour tribes, but ourselves, too. Identity and integrity are put intoplay, and there is a perceived loss of control. It is as if we are pulling up anchor only to drift aimlessly in thecrosscurrents across a vast and indifferent ocean. Yet, theacknowledgment that even moral consciousness is merely a product of timeand chance, historically conditioned, if it can be tolerated at all, canbe experienced as liberating too. Integrity is not only fidelity to apast, but it demands openness to a future (Torbert and Associates,2004). It makes it easier to accept and celebrate differences. It is apath to greater understanding and sympathy for the plight of others. Itallows us to broaden generously the circle of ethical concern beyond ourown families, co-religionists, and citizens to honor everyone. If anyonecan play, everyone must play. Embrace ambiguity What does it mean to embrace ambiguity? It is to realize that ourunderstanding is never immediate, automatic, and pure; it is alwaysfiltered through ongoing social and historical processes ofinterpretation and re-interpretation. It is to understand with RichardRorty that we must give up the "hope that objects will constrain usto believe the truth about them, if only they are approached with anunclouded mental eye" (Rorty 1982, p. 165). In short, embracingambiguity entails sacrificing certainty once and for all. Psychologically, it is no easier to embrace ambiguity than it is toaccept contingency. At a certain level, all of us seek and cravecertainty, conjuring it up, and then believing in it. In ethics andreligion, we create creeds that we repeat over and over again toconvince ourselves--against ourselves--that what is, at best, a probableand likely outcome is definite and sure ("I believe with perfectfaith ..."). We ourselves draw strict and high boundaries aroundthe edges of our own beliefs and then pretend that it was not us whodrew the boundaries in the first place. Even when it comes to science,there is a strong tendency to choose to forget that in order for atheory to be "true" it must be also be falsifiable (i.e.,potentially false). A "playful" but profound example of embracing andinstitutionalizing ambiguity when it comes to issues of the highestethical concern is found in a seemingly strange Jewish law concerningcapital punishment. According to the Rabbis of the Talmud in theTractate of Sanhedrin, 23 judges are required to try a capital case. Ifall 23 judges find the defendant guilty, however, the judges aredisqualified and the verdict is thrown out. There is a deep suspicion inJewish law toward such "perfect" unanimity. What does such conformity, after the fact, tell us about theprocesses of dialogue and deliberation? Suspicions are raised aboutwhether or not there was ample opportunity for everyone to state theirpositions. Perhaps, perfect unanimity is a signal that some of the morepowerful judges silenced and bullied the less powerful ones. Unanimitysuggests an impossible kind of certainty and ignores the ambiguityinherent in every human judgment. Rabbi Nilton Bonder adds the followinginstructive commentary and extension: This law--an expression of the soul and obviously subversive--is leery of any case that is so well presented that every shadow of doubt is eliminated. Unanimity reflects accommodation to an absolute truth, and absolute truth, which has tremendous destructive potential, is inimical to life. It is the soul that detects this, for it is the soul's interests that are jeopardized by such unanimity. Public opinion, dogmas, conventions, morality, and traditions can often represent a kind of unanimity that disqualifies their capacity to judge what is fair, healthy, or constructive, (p. 16) Of the many lessons one can derive from this seemingly odd andancient law, the most important and enduring one for present purposes isits explicit recognition that every system of law, even one that mightclaim Divine authorship, is inherently flawed, incomplete, and imperfectin our hands. Experiment with values The values we inherit from tradition and the values we adopt inschool and at work help to define who we are. They provide us with afixed and historically tested framework within which we can makeimportant decisions. Sticking with old values is a way of respecting thepast and tolerating the stress of ambiguity. Nevertheless, through playwe learn to test and challenge ethics and experiment with values in anattempt to learn and grow. Play reduces (but does not eliminate) the risks associated withsuch experiments. The central paradox in play is expressed well in thefollowing quote from contemporary psychologists Gwen Gordon and SeanEsbjorn-Hargens: Holding the paradox that something is simultaneously what it represents and not what it represents enables the player to engage an obstacle to play, however terrifying it may be, without risking a full loss of control. The implicit or explicit limits that bind play in space and time make it safe for the player to surrender to the playful urge, take chances, try on new roles, and attempt tasks that, under normal circumstances, might be avoided as too difficult or unpleasant. It is a place where the novelty and risk of new situation or experience only add to the intensity and pleasure of play. The player is able to be in control of being out of control and so enjoy a sense both of risk and of mastery simultaneously. (Gordon and Esbjorn-Hargens 2007) In play, there are self-imposed and jointly shared psychologicallimits to the meaning of our actions. Outside the frame of play, actionsand expressions are intended to be understood in their traditional,literal, and typical ways (both by ourselves and others). Within theframe of play, however, we devise a safe "container" where theusual meaning of actions is temporarily suspended and meaning ispurposely left open and undecided (Kegan and Lahey 2001). The seemingmagic of play is that it opens up a tiny gap between the past andfuture--an intermediate space between us--where we can "be incontrol of being out of control." In this in-between space,temporary and exceedingly fragile, we discover the freedom to explorealternative values, mysterious and even disturbing experiences, and allkinds of strange and imaginary worlds. Invent new meanings One of the many purposes of play is to invent new meanings thatchallenge and subsume old and familiar "images" (Boulding1961). To play well is not just to follow the rules of the old games,but it is to alter the rules subtly and thereby invent new games. It isto think of games not as finite but as infinite (Carse 1986). Thisrequires imagination and a light touch: One can seek meanings without assuming they are rational, context free, or fixed "forever" or that meanings can be attained only through or depend on the use of reason. Play, aesthetics, empathy with, or being used by other's feeling states are also sources of meaning and intelligibility. (Flax 1990, p. 223) Inventing new meanings opens up new possibilities for the future.James March points out, however, that the power of play affects not onlythe future but the past as well. In playing with history, we reconstructit to fit contemporary needs. In play, he writes: [W]e expose the possibility of experimenting with alternative histories. The usual strictures against "self-deception" in experience need occasionally to be tempered with an awareness of the extent to which all experience is an interpretation subject to conscious revision. Personal histories, and national histories, need to be rewritten rather continuously as a base for retrospective learning of new self-conceptions. (March 1988, p. 263, emphasis added) Most attempts to playfully invent new meanings will probably havelittle or no impact on anyone (except perhaps the author). (2) A good example in business, however, of a recent reconstruction ofmeaning that almost certainly has important implications for everyone isthe notion of corporate sustainability (Porritt 2007). Until veryrecently, it has been taken as self-evident that the sole purpose of amodern business entity is to maximize profits for corporateshareholders. This view, however, has now lost its taken-for-grantedstatus and has been put into play by several large and smallcorporations that have officially recognized sustainability as afundamental and primary business goal through triple-bottom line reportsand other company pronouncements. It is interesting to note, in line with the thesis of this paper,that what started as off-beat and strange business practices not toolong ago (for example Ben & Jerry's, The Body Shop, Tom'sof Maine, Herman Miller, and a handful of others) have now becomemainstream. I would suggest, however, that there is still a playfulquality to almost all discussions concerning sustainability includingthe triple bottom line reports themselves. There continues to be a sensethat behind closed doors, corporate executives have still not"really" bought into it. Business critics, however, shouldunderstand that a radical change in business philosophy of the kind weare talking about here is a slow process with progress starting andstopping on a continual basis. A play ethic requires that such criticslearn to temper their understandable suspicion of corporations with atolerance for what seems as slow progress here. Critics will need toremind themselves of the paradox inherent in play "that somethingis simultaneously what it represents and not what it represents."This brings us to the next topic. Suspend judgments During play, we learn to suspend judgments. The more complex theplay, the more difficult this task becomes. Although suspendingjudgments becomes more important in a post-modern age, it is an abilityalready assumed in ancient and traditional social acts like apologizing,repenting, rebuking, and forgiving (Pava 2008). Today, the ability to suspend judgments must take us even further.It demands an increased tolerance for hypocrisy. "A bad man withgood intentions may be a man experimenting with the possibility ofbecoming good. Somehow it seems to me more sensible to encourageexperimentation that to insult it" (March, 1989, p. 263). Further, a play ethic also calls into question certainwell-accepted ideas and prescriptions concerning both evaluation andaccountability. The notion that evaluation must be based on a set ofcriteria determined before action is taken assumes the traditional"rational model" of behavior where preferences are known,fixed, and stable. In play, however, it may turn out that it is more"intelligent" to act first and then to develop evaluationcriteria. As James March points out, "there is nothing in a formaltheory of evaluation that requires that the criterion function forevaluation be specified in advance" (March 1989, p. 264). Although,at first hearing, this has a strange sound to it, it is one of the mostprofound implications of a play ethic. Second, and related to this point, the notion ofaccountability--how we explain ourselves to each other--needs to bebroadened and tempered with a greater ability to suspend judgments. Asit becomes more accepted that novel goals evolve out of action,accountability no longer implies that individuals and organizations mustalways know what it is that they are doing before they do it. We mustbegin to build a play ethic into the very notion of accountability. Thisis especially important for teachers and all professionals working incomplex, ambiguous, and constantly changing environments. It is alsorelevant for helping to nurture experimental values like corporatesustainability discussed earlier. Traditional notions of evaluation and accountability can haveperverse outcomes if they reinforce individuals and organizations intofollowing routine and standard procedures when such procedures havebecome outdated and ineffective. "Experience should be usedexplicitly as an occasion for evaluating our values as well as ouractions" (March 1988, p. 259). More complex methods of evaluationand accountability must allow for learning, growth, and change. Institutionalize play but continue playing with play Authentic play always possesses a quality of serendipity. It isaccidental and lucky. Nevertheless, there are several ways that play canbe institutionalized both at the individual level and at theorganizational level. Time can be set aside for playful activities likereading, viewing movies, and trips to the museum. Decisions, includingbusiness decisions, can be based on intuition and gut feelings ratherthan logic and intellect. One can engage in brainstorming, mindfulnessexercises, and meditation practices. Organizations set up separatedivisions especially designed to take on high risk research anddevelopment projects. They hire multi-cultural work forces with diversebackgrounds and experiences. Compensation schedules are re-negotiated toallow for failures as well as successes. James March who has taught us so much about play spoke of thepossibility of developing a "technology" of play. He raisedquestions (perhaps playfully) about "optimizing" play (see p.261). In this vision, play itself becomes subject to a set of rules andcomes perilously close to returning to a mechanistic worldview fromwhich it seemed March has been trying to escape. A technology of play,however, forgets James Carse's first principle that he or she whomust play, cannot play (Carse 1986). The hope of a set of fixed rules to determine play reminds me of afamous Hasidic tale retold by Martin Buber: There once was a man who was very stupid. When he got up in the morning, it was so hard for him to find his clothes that at night he almost hesitated to go to bed when he thought about the trouble he would have on waking. One evening, he finally made a great effort, took paper and pencil, and as he undressed noted exactly where he put everything he had on. The next morning, very pleased with himself, he took the slip of paper in hand and read: "Hat"--there it was, he sat it on his head; "pants"--there they lay, he got into them; and so it went until he was finally dressed, "that's all very well, but where am I myself?" he asked in great consternation. "Where in the world am I?" He looked and looked, but it was a vain search; he could not find himself. "And that is how it is with us," said the rabbi. (As quoted by Bonder 2001) There is no slip of paper from which we can hope to read off theanswer to the question "Where in the world am I?" So too, inthe end, there can be no set of rules to guide us on how to play better.A technology of play is a contradiction in terms. It is like a painterusing a paint-by-numbers set or a poet stealing metaphors from poets ofthe past and claiming them as his own. And, even if a technology of playdid exist, it would quickly become the subject of another round of evenmore creative and complex play. To sum up: Finding the good-enough balance between work and play isless a technology or a kind of science and more of a spiritual quest. Akind of uncertain and dangerous play that challenges and provokes theethical status quo must be respectful, trusting, pragmatic, imaginative,original, stimulating, grounded in the realities of the situation, anddevelopmentally appropriate. Like all spiritual acts, it must strengthenintegrity and interconnections simultaneously (Pava 2007). Once one hasaccepted play as transformative--there is no retreating to a fullembrace of the rational model of decision-making as March hints at noris there a return to the (false) security it promises. The biblical poet Ecclesiastes noted long ago:Everything has its season; there is a time for every matter underheaven:A time to be born, and a time to die;A time to plant, and a time to uproot,A time to kill, and a time to heal;A time to break down, and a time to build up;A time to weep, and a time to laugh ... (Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3 asquoted in Birnbaum 1973) This is the playful attitude we necessarily bring to ethics. WhatEcclesiastes did not mention, however, is that there does notnecessarily have to be separate and distinct times for each of theseactivities. In fact, as we reject dualism, we come to notice that we arealways being born and always dying, continuously planting andcontinuously uprooting, forever killing and forever healing, constantlybreaking down and constantly building up, eternally laughing andeternally weeping. This is the paradox of play. Conclusion It is impossible to think of ourselves as completed beings. So too,it is impossible to conceive of our own ethical systems as perfect. Wemust surely know that we hold many beliefs that are simply flat-outwrong. So too, we know that we are driven by undesirable desires.Because of all this, we necessarily treat ourselves and our ethicalsystems playfully. We need to co-create a space neither here nor there;a space that provides room to explore and experiment, a gap between thepast and the future. Adam and Eve in paradise had but one prohibition. "But of thetree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat ..."(Genesis 2:17) Playfully, I imagine, Eve fed Adam the forbidden fruitand history--as we experience it--begins. Works cited Birnbaum, Philip, 1973, Five Megilloth, New York: Hebrew PublishingCompany. Bonder, Nilton, 2001, Our Immoral Soul: A Manifesto of SpiritualDisobedience, Boston and London: Shambhala. Boulding, Kenneth E., 1961, The Image: Knowledge in Life andSociety, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Caillois, Roger, 2001, Man, Play, and Games, translated by MeyerBarash, Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Carse, James, 2008, The Religious Case Against Belief, New York:Penguin Press. Carse, James P., 1986, Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Lifeas Play and Possibility, New York: Random House. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, 2003, Good Business: Leadership, Flow,and the Making of Meaning, New York: Viking. Elkind, David, 2007, The Power of Play: How Spontaneous,Imaginative Activities Lead to Happier Healthier Children, Cambridge, DeCapo Press. Flax, Jane, 1990, Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism& Postmodernism in the Contemporary West, Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press. Gordon, Gwen, and Sean Esbjorn-Hargens, 2007, "Are We HavingFun Yet? An Exploration of the Transformative Power of Play,"Journal of Humanistic Psychology 35(1), pp. 198-222. Kegan, Robert, and Lisa Laskow Lahey, 2001, How the Way We Talk CanChange the Way We Work, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. March, James, 1988, "The Technology of Foolishness,"reprinted in Decisions and Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell. March, James, 1989, Decisions and Organizations, Oxford: Blackwell. Pava, Moses L., 2007, "Teaching Spirituality In (and Out) ofthe Classroom," Journal of Business Ethics 73(3), pp. 287-299. Pava, Moses L., 2008, "The Art of Moral Criticism: Rebuke inthe Jewish Tradition and Beyond," Working Paper. Porritt, Jonathan, 2007, Capitalism: As If the World Matters,London: Earthscan. Rorty, Richard, 1982, Consequences of Pragmatism, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press. Rorty, Richard, 1989, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sutton-Smith, Brian, 1997, The Ambiguity of Play, Cambridge,Harvard University Press. Torbert, Bill and Associates, 2004, Action Inquiry: The Secret ofTimely and Transforming Leadership, San Francisco: Berrett-KoehlerPublishers, Inc. Walzer, Michael, 2004, Politics and Passion: Toward a MoreEgalitarian Liberalism, New Haven, CT & London: Yale UniversityPress. Winnicott, D.W., 1971, Playing and Reality, New York:Brouner-Routledge. Zerubavel, Eviatar, 1991, The Fine Line: Making Distinctions inEveryday Life, New York: The Free Press. Notes (1.) March's definition is similar to that of Gregory Batesonwho wrote that play "is a name for contexts in which theconstituent acts have a different sort of relevance. . .from that whichthey would have had in non-play ... The essence of play lies in apartial denial of the meanings that the actions would have had in othersituations" (as quoted in Zerubavel 1991, p. 11). See alsoSutton-Smith (1997) and Caillois (2001) for extensive and rigorousdiscussions concerning definitions of play. (2.) It is not always clear why some reconstructions have aprofound impact and others whither away. Biblical codes, defined byWikipedia as "the notion that there are information patternsencrypted in the text of the Bible, or, more specifically, in the Torah,the first five books of the Hebrew Bible," for example provides amost novel way of reading a text and certainly has a "playful"quality to it. Nevertheless, biblical experts view it not as asignificant advancement toward understanding, but as a kind of silly andimmature game.