[iDC] Play and Counterpower
Sal Randolph
salrandolph at gmail.com
Mon Jun 22 15:35:55 UTC 2009
Hi All,
Thanks for the thoughtful responses, Julian. Still mulling over the
implications of switching from a tactical to a strategic perspective.
> While I do not agree with Sutton-smith's noble savage idea that
> "third world people" never had a notion of winning before
> colonialists introduced it to them I
Point taken here. indeed.
> At the same time it is evident that this is a phantasmatic
> empowerment which ultimately only serves to uphold existing power
> relationships, so if this is a form of counter-power it has been co-
> opted and turned back into a form of government.
I think what interested me in those remarks of Sutton-Smith's was the
idea that games contain multiple meanings within their game
structures, and those meanings and structures may offer reservoirs for
forms of counterpower. Not that beating Britain in cricket is
counterpower per se, but instead that the game of cricket inherently
contains the *idea* of beating Britain which is then available in
thought and imagination and deployment elsewhere. I suppose at this
point we could begin the argument about whether ideas can have effects.
> Yes, play cannot be coerced, and it doesn't need to because it is in
> itself so compelling. This is what happens in the transition from
> coercive disciplinary societies to societies of control, in which
> the means if control are internalized to such a degree that they
> become indistinguishable from the machinations of subjectivity.
What I was hoping to get at was the idea that because play holds open
internal spaces of uncoerced action, it has effects on internal
systems of control as well as external ones. Certainly this is part
of my own experience of play and games - they act much more directly
on my internal regimes than on my external situations.
Also I'm a little troubled by the idea that there is an inherent
problem in forms of activity, work or play, that are compelling for
their own sake.
Reading up in the early days of this conversation it struck me that
there is an interesting political (strategic/tactical) problem
presented by unalienated labor. Basically, people engaged in
unalienated labor (and I think this does cover a good part of the work
under discussion here) are less enmiserated - less unhappy and less
motivated towards political change. Or at least they might be. I
think that's one of the worries behind the conversation, anyway.
To me this is an open question. Do forms of unalienated experience
reduce someone's potential for instigating or participating in social
change, or do they increase it? We could argue it both ways. The idea
that unalienated experience might the basis for revolutionary action
(or whatever milder version of social and political change) is often
viewed as highly romantic or even unthinking. And yet...
Another of the questions on my mind is whether unalienated labor and
play are really the same thing, Or maybe more accurately, whether
unalienated labor is really a form of play. It's often playful, yes,
or "ludic," but rather than letting work and play completely collapse
in our discussions there might be ways it's advantageous to keep them
apart. For instance, it seems to me we have a reasonably well
articulated set of play theories, but a much less developed discussion
about unalienated forms of work and experience.
One place we might look for this kind of development (as a couple of
people on the list have pointed out) is in feminist analysis of
women's work. There lies a whole tradition of "free work" which is
sometimes described as playbour and other times as exploitation, and
which from a contemporary perspective clearly has elements of both.
Where I do see play and unalienated work as intimately connected is in
an experience of agency. Of course in contemporary discussions the
idea of self, subject, and agency have been usefully problematized. No
one is "free" in the sense that enlightenment thinkers imagined --
we're all increasingly aware that we are always embedded in internal
and external systems of meaning and control. Still, we do have
intentions and desires, even if our actions don't always have the
consequences we imagined. And it's hard to imagine initiating any
kind of meaningful political action without a sense of agency.
One thinker I find useful here is Sherry Ortner, with her idea of
"serious games" (inspired by the practice theory of Bourdieu, Giddens,
Sahlins, and de Certeau).
"I want to propose a model of practice that embodies agency but does
not begin with, or pivot upon, the agent, actor, or individual. While
there are very definitely in this view actors and agents, desires and
intentions, plans and plots, these are embedded within--what shall we
call them? games? projects? dramas? stories?--in any event, motivated,
organized, and socially complex ways of going about life in particular
times and places. Of the terms just noted. . . I find "games" to be
the most broadly useful image. But because the idea of the game in
English connotes something relatively light and playful, I modify the
term: "serious games." The idea of the "game" is meant to capture
simultaneously the following dimensions: that social life is
culturally organized and constructed, in terms of defining categories
of actors, rules and goals of games, and so forth; that social life is
precisely social, consisting of webs of relationship and interaction
between multiple, shiftingly interrelated subject positions, none of
which can be extracted as autonomous "agents"; and yet at the same
time there is "agency," that is, actors play with skill, intention,
wit, knowledge, intelligence. The idea that the game is "serious" is
meant to add into the equation the idea that power and inequality
pervade the games of life in multiple ways, and that, while there
maybe playfulness and pleasure in the process, the stakes of these
games are often very high. It follows in turn that the games of life
must be played with intensity and sometimes deadly earnestness. As a
final note, there is an assumption that there is never only one
game....." (Sherry Ortner, Making Gender)
My own optimism about change is tempered not so much by the
limitations and darker sides of play or even social media, but by a
greater appreciation of the extremely varied and conflicting needs,
goals, intentions of everyone involved, and the oblique relationship
between intentions and consequences in any kind of action. In other
words, if everyone was empowered and aware of their own agency and
fully alive etc. we still wouldn't be able to predict what would
happen or whether it would look like anything we now imagine as good.
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Sal Randolph
http://salrandolph.com
salrandolph at gmail.com
More information about the iDC
mailing list