Rhetorical Strategy and Creative Methodology
Revisiting Homo Ludens
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2941289 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Joshua Daniel-Wariya (Oklahoma State University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2019 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 622-638 |
| Publication date | 2019-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Games and Culture (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1555-4120 • E-ISSN: 1555-4139 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1555412017721085 |
| OpenAlex | W2791032538 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 10 |
This article revisits Johan Huizinga's theory of play in Homo Ludens by considering his rhetorical and methodological choices. The essay examines particular concepts that have been subject to hermeneutical debate and suggests they might be understood through an appreciation of how Huizinga deliberately cultivated clashing points of view in his work as an embodiment of his poetic methodology. This methodology is, in turn, reflected by particular rhetorical practices evident in his writing style. The essay discusses three specific rhetorical devices used by Huizinga in Homo Ludens to make knowledge about play. With these realizations about Huizinga's rhetoric and methodology in mind, the essay then contextualizes his use of the term magic circle within the political agenda of Huizinga's writing in general as a philosophical response to logical positivism. The essay concludes by reflecting upon how an appreciation of Huizinga's rhetoric, methodology, and politics might be helpful for student-researchers
Aesthetics · Art · Epistemology · Linguistics · Literature · Political science · Politics · Positivism · Rhetoric · Rhetorical question · Sociology · Style (visual arts · Subject (documents · Digital Games and Media · Law · Media, Communication, and Education · Philosophy · Shakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
| Unique citing works | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,29 |
| Citation span | 2019 - 2020 (2) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |