Translated into various languages, Homo Ludens was almost instantly recognized as a thoroughly insightful study, and a tool for the analysis of contemporary culture. In more recent years, Homo Ludens turns out to be an expedient benchmark for thinking about the cultural grid that ultimately, if not to say ontologically, grounds social structures and supports phenomena such as politics, economy, popular culture, media, consumerism, and the design of social life. Furthermore, especially relatively younger branches of the humanities and social sciences, such as sport studies, leisure studies, media studies and (serious) gaming, reckon Homo Ludens to be a relevant toolkit, particularly for analyzing modern day culture in the broadest sense.

Ever since the beginning of the nineteenth century western man appeared to be ill equipped for the future. A tension arose between the requirements of a rapidly modernizing society and the adaptive capacities of each individual human being. Industrialization, rationalization, mechanization, urbanization, and dynamization in a variety of fields demanded a dedication and flexibility that the individual citizen could hardly muster. The crisis of modernity manifested itself not merely in negative expressions of estrangement. Artists and intellectuals responded creatively to the civilization offensive, designing the contours of a human culture better equipped for the new world. The starting-point for many of such designs for future man was the thought that culture and society must be understood in terms of play and that man is a symbolizing creature par excellence. Quite a few of these new visions of man and future-oriented types of design of physical and spiritual experience were meant as scenarios for interventions in the public sphere. However, in the 1930’s, Huizinga’s intention was to develop a scholarly view on the concept of play.

Three quarters of a century after its first publication, and after the substantial and critical attention Homo Ludens has managed to bring about, the moment has come to re-evaluate Huizinga’s concept of play in the light of recent experience and insights. Central to this re-evaluation is the question already touched upon by Huizinga: to what extent can play still be considered as a vital factor in contemporary culture, or has modern civilization indeed lost most of the play-elements characteristic of former ages? And if so, what other, possibly new, kinds of functions of play have appeared since then?

When Huizinga’s book was published, the worst nightmare of the twentieth century, the Holocaust, was yet to come. Other events and developments that have occurred since the Holocaust seem to undermine the basic assumptions of Huizinga’s notion of play ‘as a moment of elegant and pleasant sublimation’, as Umberto Eco has phrased it. One could think of the tremendous growth of the culture industry, the power of the media, mass-consumerism, globalization, capitalism impinging upon the cultural space et cetera. According to Huizinga, to play means to have fun, even in the harshest game situations. But on the other hand playing, in the sense of a cultural activity, implies a certain element of seriousness. The biggest challenge for any cultural system is to maintain a balance between fun and seriousness. The predominance of seriousness over fun will ultimately lead to cultural decay or even the breakdown of culture.

Is it appropriate, or adequate, to speak of culture as being played, when the game is extremely violent and the outcome has been manipulated? Such issues go far beyond the coincidental occasion of the commemoration of the publication of this celebrated book: they go straight to the very heart of the debate on culture. Time and again the Homo Ludens has led important cultural critics and historians to reassess Huizinga’s ideas. The work of scholars such as Jacques Ehrmann, Umberto Eco, Wendy Doniger and many others sounded the call for an international interdisciplinary congress on Johan Huizinga’s Homo Ludens: 75 Years Later. Based upon their critiques the idea has arisen for a re-evaluation of Huizinga’s study along the lines of four paradigmatic issues:

1. Playing after Auschwitz: is it possible to formulate a theory of play that is able to deal with culture, not only in its elegant and innocuous appearances, but in its most cruel and tragic forms as well? Could the disastrous experience of the Holocaust be integrated into the concept of play?

2. To play or being played with: is the freedom of play being threatened by the upsurge of the culture industry, which, since Huizinga published his book, seems to have gained power and control over all spheres of life? Or does the play of culture create its own freedom, precisely in opposition to the driving force of the culture industry?

3. From cultural history to structuralism and sociology: it seems that Huizinga in his inquiry into the idea of play only focused on cultural activity, but is it perhaps possible to translate and apply his ideas to human society and its manifestations as a whole? Are there indeed rules of play which make the existence of a society possible (Lévi-Strauss)? If so, would it be feasible to investigate and decode the matrix of play, thereby uncovering the multiple connections between play and society?

4. The ethos of play: to play means to play by the rules. But isn’t the disappearance of any rules whatsoever precisely late modernity’s main characteristic? How to deal with those who cheat?

The purpose of this three-day conference is to bring together experts in various disciplines, ranging from the social sciences, the arts, religious studies, philosophy, history, anthropology, psychology, economy, to media studies and gaming. All scholars are invited to shed their light on Huizinga’s thesis, while paying special attention to the post-Second World War and present-day situation. The four issues raised above function as focal points around which the experts from various disciplines come together. The idea is, following the wish expressed by Huizinga himself, to create not only a multi-disciplinary but also a truly interdisciplinary scholarly exchange on one of the most important ideas for the understanding of contemporary society.