Abstract: Huizinga’s theory of play is often regarded as an imperfect foundational work of modern ludology due to its perceived excessive emphasis on Agon （competition）. However， revisiting Huizinga’s theoretical framework and historical context reveals that his theory of play is fundamentally a social theory addressing how humans coexist amidst competition， rather than strictly a cultural theory aimed at defining play itself. Between the two World Wars， in the face of cultural decay in social life and the intensifying hostile political competition， Huizinga drew upon Plato， Schiller， and Burckhardt， as well as incorporated the philosophy of reciprocity of the Annales school’s anthropology into his elaboration of the “Homo Ludens” concept. Huizinga expanded the non-utilitarian value of play in human civilization from individual aesthetic education to the level of group coexistence， presenting it as a messianic proposal to reclaim classical humanistic traditions and the ideal of peace. Huizinga conceived of play as a beneficial competitive state crucial to civilizational development. Within a broad comparative civilizational perspective， the competitions， contests， and rituals， typically depicted by classical anthropology as occurring between opposing groups， were seen to create universal cultural institutions， such as law， poetry， and myth. These institutions possessed cultural regulatory power precisely because they were structured within a framework of play， mitigating tendencies toward fragmentation and antagonism among groups. For Huizinga， a significant cost of modernity was the decline of play within social life， where intense competition for economic or political power has led to an excessive encroachment of the domain of seriousness （Ernst） into the domain of play （Spiel）， thus returning society back to its primitive state where only “prey” and “enemies” were visible， most dramatically manifested in the threat of “total war” to human civilization. Huizinga formulated this judgment against the backdrop of pre-World War II Germany’s increasingly unlawful diplomatic and military strategies. In contrast to Carl Schmitt， Germany’s leading jurist who similarly expressed dissatisfaction with modern civilization through his pessimistic friendenemy distinction theory， Huizinga replaced the assumption of “political man” with that of “playing man”， and substituted the figure of the “enemy” with that of the “opponent，” offering humanity an ethically enriched， more optimistic perspective. Facing today’s intensifying divisions and competition across various fields， revisiting Huizinga’s theory of play can encourage competing actors to adopt a spirit of play that maintains seriousness， cultivating the cultural ability to balance freedom with order and political passion with ethical norms. This approach serves to reaffirm the fundamental consensus required for peaceful human coexistence.

Key words: Huizinga, play, agon（competition）, coexistence, ethical seriousness