English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Huizinga's aim in “Homo Ludens” was to reveal the presence of play in social life as the primary nucleus of culture, as an anthropological phenomenon, underived and significant in itself. What is characteristic of play is its power to change things: It cancels every-day reality and creates an unreal world reigned by an autarchic order of events. However, play does in fact simultaneously penetrate real life, giving us models, expectation and style, and inspiring both social community and cultural creation. With this anthropological interpretation of play Huizinga explains the different forms of culture as having their origin in man's impulse to play. In his “Les Jeux et les Hommes” Caillois in his turn takes up this description of the phenomenon of play as an ever-present factor in culture. It means rupture with reality and at the same time cultural and social creation. Caillois establishes an extensive classification of games,adding any aspect that may have been omitted by Huizinga. If we consider the common point of departure these two authors take and make a compromise on their differences, we will find that they give us an important anthropological view of the phenomenon of cultur

Huizinga-Caillois : variaciones sobre una visión atropológica del juego