Agonism is a concept I always have a hard time accepting. On the one hand, I think there’s something to be said for learning from adversity and hardship, but I suspect agonism has more in common with hazing than instruction. I enjoy games that are brutally difficult, like Bloodborne or Roguelikes because of the laser-focus on trial and error and detail-oriented iteration of technique, and desensitization to the idea that failure will kill you, but that’s me. I don’t want to ask my students enjoy what I enjoy like that. Agonism has a tendency to discourage people from playing as much as it does to teach them about failure. I much prefer Jesper Juul’s account of failure-game relationships wherein a good game teaches the player to overcome failures before them in a safe space. Huizinga’s recount of agon in his section on ritual “games” or “play” that give life and society meaning through their underlying themes of sacrifice, of course, makes sense, but I question it when we talk about application to education. If anything, I’d like to see Huizinga take up the concept of eristic games, instructive countering of moves/arguments simply to see them played out. Not only is it a solid metagaming activity that instructs players on the limits and possibilities of the game, it can be coupled with reflection to show why some moves are better for others, not just for the sake of the game but for the sake of the players. Above all else, eristic exercises can be instituted in a more safe way than agonism, which assumes that conflict is ever-present and pervasive. I see why Huizinga doesn’t take up eristic games: they’re not ritualized. I admire Huizinga’s project to show the “seriousness”
that comes from games and their contributions to society, but it’s also important to focus on the play that happens on small scales and doesn’t always result in great singular meaning.