During my visit to Anji last year, I saw and experienced a number of things that deepened my understanding of play and its power to help children understand the world around them. One of the most memorable was a conversation between a school principal from Anji, and a principal from the U.S. Before diving into this, I want to emphasize that I'm not occupying the position of an expert here and I don't have answers, I'm just thinking things through.

The subject of the conversation stemmed from a question I asked the principal during a Q&A. "I noticed that there were some kids playing pretend, holding some planks as if they were guns and making gun sounds. I was wondering if you have any regulations around whether or not kids are allowed to play with guns?"

The principals's response was "I think it matters much more what the significance of that play is to the child than it's external appearance to adults. For kids, playing with guns isn't always a matter of war & peace. It could just be a way of playing tag."

The principal from the U.S. said "we don't allow it. A lot of our kids have been affected by gun violence, and it is not a positive thing, so we don't allow it at all."

The principal from Anji responded "Well you know in China we can't have guns, so in China, we let our kids play with fake guns but not real guns. In the U.S. you let kids play with real guns but not fake ones."

This sentence was really powerful and telling. It begs the obvious question "Perhaps kids dealing with gun-related trauma stand to benefit the most from gun play". If play is a tool that children use to understand their relationship to the world, perhaps that understanding could be incredibly helpful to them in coming to terms with and understanding the cause of their trauma.

Another obvious reaction is to say "Children dealing with gun-related trauma should be protected from gun play because god forbid they act out and then accidentally worsen their trauma and perpetuate the cycle of gun violence." There is a ton to unpack here and I can't do it justice with this blog post. That said, it's an incredibly helpful lens to ask ourselves about the role of play and learning.

The idea of risk is central to our question here. It's easy to advocate for risk when the consequences are bruises and scratches, but what if the consequences are deep, emotional consequences?

One example I talk a lot about when telling others about Anji Play, is the conversation between a therapist and someone in an abusive relationship. It's the therapist's job to point out that the relationship is abusive, but it's not their job to tell their patient to dump their partner. That decision needs to come from the individual in order for them to feel ownership of the decision and truly learn from it. Otherwise, they might make the same mistake again or resent their therapist for the consequences that come from the breakup. The therapist (parent, friend, etc) must hold their tongue, knowing that the individual in question may suffer much more pain along the way, as they eventually realize what is right for them.

It may be conventional wisdom that this is how to support people in their relationships to other people. Could we extend this wisdom to apply to supporting people in their relationships to ideas? After all, people are but a very complicated idea, which differs from person to person.

My inclination is to say yes, risk is an important foundation for learning which applies to all forms of learning - emotional & intellectual. That said, I feel like I need to do a bit of reading about play therapy and trauma before I feel comfortable advocating for that approach. Please get in touch if you have any recommended readings for this topic!