This paper, relying on Graeber, attempts to consider play within the framework of the issue of “economy and society”. In doing so, we will focus on the key word of “value” in Graeber. Why do we discuss play when discussing “economy and society”? Simply put, we want to focus on the fact that as the economy rises above society, play is not only devalued as a secondary thing, but also the fact that play is being absorbed into the logic of the market. We will take up play parks as a space for children to play. The role of the staff (play leaders) at play parks is related to the “value” that Graeber talks about. I interpreted Graeber's theory of value, which says that social relationships gain value through the process of being recognized by someone else, by applying it to play parks. I was able to confirm the importance of the perspective of the transfer, or circulation, of value.

Post-structuralist feminism and French materialist feminism have been traditionally understood to occupy similar theoretical positions. In particular, J. Butler, representing the former approach, and C. Delphy, as a representative figure of the latter, have been situated on a continuum, notably in their critique of sex/gender distinction. Their discussions indeed seem quite similar in questioning the assumption that sex is the basis of gender. However, there is a decisive difference between Butler and French materialist feminism regarding the kind of society they envision. Butler's ideal revolves around the multiplication of gender, where male bodies acquire feminine attributes and vice versa, thereby blurring the binary opposition between men and women. Butler envisions a society where individuals each embody their own unique gender interpretations, resulting in as many genders as there are individuals. On the other hand, French materialist feminism envisions an ideal society devoid of gender. They view the categories of male and female as a hierarchical system resembling social class. Consequently, in a society where the dominance of men over women is absent, the concepts of "woman" or "man" as gender (social groups) cease to exist. This paper examines Butler's exploration of the "multiplication of gender" by contrasting it with French materialist feminism. Butler begins her argument by critically examining the assumption regarding the existence of a body prior to discourse. By rejecting the idea of a body existing prior to cultural interpretation, Butler argues that humans are "always already" gendered. According to Butler, there is no "outside" to gender. However, this argument is flawed both in its premise and conclusion, as it conflates the current state of affairs with an inevitable future.