Players Counter-Players & Non-Players, Page 2
Zaid Hassan
perhaps the most famous example of this, as his journey from convicted terrorist to president testifies. Other examples include Mao, Fidel Castro and Jascha Fisher.
The nature of the relationship between players and counter-players, at least historically, is at best competitive and at worst combative. According to James P Carse, the nature of the contest is generally assumed to be a zero sum or “finite” game, with a declared beginning, and a declared end leading to a declared winner where both sides agree to abide by said declarations. If one side refuses then either the game is not over or it must be abandoned as unfinished.
Counter-players who refuse to accept that they have lost, are of-course scorned as uncivilized; as terrorists or as insurgents.
Social challenges, unlike zero sum games, typically have no clearly pre-defined end, even when one is desired. For example, the World Bank’s mission statement is “A world free of poverty” but clearly we do not have any idea when this will happen or even if it will happen. Similarly the Global Commission on Drug Policy recently declared that the decades long War Against Drugs has failed and a new strategy is needed. The War Against Drugs represents an attempt to pursue, at great human cost, a competitive finite game strategy in a game that will not end, so to speak, when a referee blows a whistle. So in the midst of the fury of contemporary games, we must remind ourselves that social systems cannot simply be treated as zero sum games, with winners and losers, simply because the nature of the game is unpleasant and we want it to end.
Turning once again to James P. Carse, he distinguishes between two types of games, finite and infinite games. Finite games are played for the purposes of winning and infinite games are played for the purposes of continuing to play. Seeing social challenges as an infinite game means inviting more and more people to “play”, that is, to take responsibility for addressing the challenges at hand, recognizing that a whistle will not be blown ending play.
Conversely, pretending that poverty will be alleviated or injustice wiped from the face of the planet is at best a naïve, dubious claim and at worst a falsehood, a political lie designed to elicit a sacrifice, be that of dollars or of blood.
While social conditions may change, for example through the eradication of slavery or of smallpox, suffering is part of the human condition. Pretending it can be otherwise, that a class of technocrats will wipe out suffering, is a recipe for bloodshed, as in the case of the Soviet Union. This is the reason why the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Into this Boolean mix let us introduce a new idea, the idea of collaboration between players and counter-players engaged in infinite games.
At least in the context of social contexts both players and counterplayers profess an allegiance to a higher goal than their commitment to defeating the other side or even adherence to the rules of the game. The point of playing, ultimately, is to improve the human condition. Neither side has a monopoly on such goals. The differences between players and counter-players thus stem not generally in the end-goals, such as addressing injustice, alleviating human suffering and misery, or increasing equality and fairness in society and so on, but in the nature of their play.
The nature of finite games means that the frenzied nature of competitive play, the “fog of competitive play” if you like, often obscures these common end-goals. Neither side believes the other side shares anything in common with them. Players see counterplayers as losers and counter-players see players as inherently corrupt. If, however, you can imagine the nature of social games as different from a football game or a tennis match, to be more like say, a longdistance bicycle ride, with a common end-goal then we can start to imagine the nature of collaborative play.
Players and counter-players may disagree vehemently on strategies (or routes) for achieving the end-goals but they are heading in a shared direction, sometimes over common terrain. From a practical point of view, some strategies may be more effective than others, especially when terrain is common. In which case, if we are genuinely committed to the end-goal of improving the human condition then we should we open to a critical examination of our strategies and be open to adapting better strategies.
A failure of such openness is an indication of one of two things. Firstly, that some secondary goal, often hidden, is more important, that is, an actual lack of commitment to the end-goals. Or, secondly it is an indication of cynicism, that is, a failure of imagination, a potential lack of faith in achieving end-goals, as in we’ll never get there no matter what we do.
The argument for competition as being the dominant strategy for play is weak, despite the motivating power of competition. It is weak because the stakes of the games we are involved in are getting higher and higher, more and more complex. Simply grasping the nature of social games requires us to consider diverse positions and options and to share key lessons in pursuing our common end-goals.
The competitive nature of contemporary play means we are largely unable to fully assess strategies for achieving end-goals or the motivations behind them. This is because strategies also consist of tactical moves designed to defeat the other side, which obscure the field and may well contribute nothing to achievement of the endgoals. This again is “the fog of competitive play” distracting us from achieving our stated end-goals in a more effective manner.
In such cases, play becomes a series of tactical moves with no strategic value except that of short-term personal or political gain. At its most insidious, entire generations are born within this form of play, never considering notions of life or play beyond short-term tactical moves.
THE RISE OF THE NON-PLAYER
If we accept the possibility that our contemporary situation requires a degree of collaboration between players and counter-players, then another role becomes necessary. This is the role of the non-player.
Non-players are those who refuse to be either players or counterplayers.
Non-players traditionally come in two very different varieties. There is the active non-player, a role that could be thought of as historically that of a referee or an umpire. Historically non-players could be thought of as those who attempted to ensure adherence to “fair play”, adherence to a set of rules and declaring a winner and hence the cessation of play. This role was reflective of nature of play as inherently competitive.
Then there is the inactive non-player, otherwise known as the spectator. As the nature of the games we play become more and more competitive and more and more complex, increasing numbers of people either elect to put themselves in the role of spectator or find themselves cast in that role. While this can be seen as an inactive or passive role, the sheer numbers of people playing this role mean spectators have profound impacts on the nature of play.
Entire industries are dedicated to servicing the needs of spectators. The nature of play becomes distorted as both players and nonplayers alter their play in order to serve the entertainment needs of spectators. A protestor at a recent May Day parade reported there were more people at the protest taking pictures of protestors then there were protestors.
The nature of play becomes spectacular, that is, relationships between players and counter-players are determined and mediated through the production of images, the spectacle. The US Presidential Elections are an example of this phenomenon at scale, although arguably some percentage of spectators do exercise the vote.
If the nature of play is to become collaborative, then the role of nonplayers must be better understood. Instead of ending play, they must figure out how to support both players and counter-players to continue to play for the greater common good. There are several implications to such a changed role.
Being honest to ourselves, we would admit that no one really knows when end-goals such as eliminating poverty or achieving justice or addressing environmental degradation will be reached nor exactly how. We must face up to the fact that the nature of the games we now play are emergent, where historically they used to be more clearly planned and deterministic.
Non-players must the
n take on the role of facilitating play on a field where both the features of the field and the tactics of play are emergent. Because they are emergent, players and counter-players must both become adept at evaluating the state of play and changing direction. In other words, everyone on the field must be able to learn their way to more effective unfolding and emergent strategies based on an evaluation of tactics against stated goals.
While it is usually assumed that non-players are agnostic to the outcomes of play this is not that case. Umpires are often suspected of being biased in their decision-making and neutrality is sought in non-players.
Another way of understanding the stance of non-players in terms of the outcomes of play, is that they put their faith in the nature of collaborative play, as opposed to instrumentally manipulating the outcomes or promoting an outcome which sees one side winning and another losing.
In other words, non-players, also sometimes known as facilitators, may well be as attached to particular outcomes as any player or counter-player. They are as concerned as any player or counter-player about outcomes, about the environment, injustice, or poverty.
Non-players, however, consciously make the choice of setting aside their anxieties and
The nature of the relationship between players and counter-players, at least historically, is at best competitive and at worst combative. According to James P Carse, the nature of the contest is generally assumed to be a zero sum or “finite” game, with a declared beginning, and a declared end leading to a declared winner where both sides agree to abide by said declarations. If one side refuses then either the game is not over or it must be abandoned as unfinished.
Counter-players who refuse to accept that they have lost, are of-course scorned as uncivilized; as terrorists or as insurgents.
Social challenges, unlike zero sum games, typically have no clearly pre-defined end, even when one is desired. For example, the World Bank’s mission statement is “A world free of poverty” but clearly we do not have any idea when this will happen or even if it will happen. Similarly the Global Commission on Drug Policy recently declared that the decades long War Against Drugs has failed and a new strategy is needed. The War Against Drugs represents an attempt to pursue, at great human cost, a competitive finite game strategy in a game that will not end, so to speak, when a referee blows a whistle. So in the midst of the fury of contemporary games, we must remind ourselves that social systems cannot simply be treated as zero sum games, with winners and losers, simply because the nature of the game is unpleasant and we want it to end.
Turning once again to James P. Carse, he distinguishes between two types of games, finite and infinite games. Finite games are played for the purposes of winning and infinite games are played for the purposes of continuing to play. Seeing social challenges as an infinite game means inviting more and more people to “play”, that is, to take responsibility for addressing the challenges at hand, recognizing that a whistle will not be blown ending play.
Conversely, pretending that poverty will be alleviated or injustice wiped from the face of the planet is at best a naïve, dubious claim and at worst a falsehood, a political lie designed to elicit a sacrifice, be that of dollars or of blood.
While social conditions may change, for example through the eradication of slavery or of smallpox, suffering is part of the human condition. Pretending it can be otherwise, that a class of technocrats will wipe out suffering, is a recipe for bloodshed, as in the case of the Soviet Union. This is the reason why the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Into this Boolean mix let us introduce a new idea, the idea of collaboration between players and counter-players engaged in infinite games.
At least in the context of social contexts both players and counterplayers profess an allegiance to a higher goal than their commitment to defeating the other side or even adherence to the rules of the game. The point of playing, ultimately, is to improve the human condition. Neither side has a monopoly on such goals. The differences between players and counter-players thus stem not generally in the end-goals, such as addressing injustice, alleviating human suffering and misery, or increasing equality and fairness in society and so on, but in the nature of their play.
The nature of finite games means that the frenzied nature of competitive play, the “fog of competitive play” if you like, often obscures these common end-goals. Neither side believes the other side shares anything in common with them. Players see counterplayers as losers and counter-players see players as inherently corrupt. If, however, you can imagine the nature of social games as different from a football game or a tennis match, to be more like say, a longdistance bicycle ride, with a common end-goal then we can start to imagine the nature of collaborative play.
Players and counter-players may disagree vehemently on strategies (or routes) for achieving the end-goals but they are heading in a shared direction, sometimes over common terrain. From a practical point of view, some strategies may be more effective than others, especially when terrain is common. In which case, if we are genuinely committed to the end-goal of improving the human condition then we should we open to a critical examination of our strategies and be open to adapting better strategies.
A failure of such openness is an indication of one of two things. Firstly, that some secondary goal, often hidden, is more important, that is, an actual lack of commitment to the end-goals. Or, secondly it is an indication of cynicism, that is, a failure of imagination, a potential lack of faith in achieving end-goals, as in we’ll never get there no matter what we do.
The argument for competition as being the dominant strategy for play is weak, despite the motivating power of competition. It is weak because the stakes of the games we are involved in are getting higher and higher, more and more complex. Simply grasping the nature of social games requires us to consider diverse positions and options and to share key lessons in pursuing our common end-goals.
The competitive nature of contemporary play means we are largely unable to fully assess strategies for achieving end-goals or the motivations behind them. This is because strategies also consist of tactical moves designed to defeat the other side, which obscure the field and may well contribute nothing to achievement of the endgoals. This again is “the fog of competitive play” distracting us from achieving our stated end-goals in a more effective manner.
In such cases, play becomes a series of tactical moves with no strategic value except that of short-term personal or political gain. At its most insidious, entire generations are born within this form of play, never considering notions of life or play beyond short-term tactical moves.
THE RISE OF THE NON-PLAYER
If we accept the possibility that our contemporary situation requires a degree of collaboration between players and counter-players, then another role becomes necessary. This is the role of the non-player.
Non-players are those who refuse to be either players or counterplayers.
Non-players traditionally come in two very different varieties. There is the active non-player, a role that could be thought of as historically that of a referee or an umpire. Historically non-players could be thought of as those who attempted to ensure adherence to “fair play”, adherence to a set of rules and declaring a winner and hence the cessation of play. This role was reflective of nature of play as inherently competitive.
Then there is the inactive non-player, otherwise known as the spectator. As the nature of the games we play become more and more competitive and more and more complex, increasing numbers of people either elect to put themselves in the role of spectator or find themselves cast in that role. While this can be seen as an inactive or passive role, the sheer numbers of people playing this role mean spectators have profound impacts on the nature of play.
Entire industries are dedicated to servicing the needs of spectators. The nature of play becomes distorted as both players and nonplayers alter their play in order to serve the entertainment needs of spectators. A protestor at a recent May Day parade reported there were more people at the protest taking pictures of protestors then there were protestors.
The nature of play becomes spectacular, that is, relationships between players and counter-players are determined and mediated through the production of images, the spectacle. The US Presidential Elections are an example of this phenomenon at scale, although arguably some percentage of spectators do exercise the vote.
If the nature of play is to become collaborative, then the role of nonplayers must be better understood. Instead of ending play, they must figure out how to support both players and counter-players to continue to play for the greater common good. There are several implications to such a changed role.
Being honest to ourselves, we would admit that no one really knows when end-goals such as eliminating poverty or achieving justice or addressing environmental degradation will be reached nor exactly how. We must face up to the fact that the nature of the games we now play are emergent, where historically they used to be more clearly planned and deterministic.
Non-players must the
n take on the role of facilitating play on a field where both the features of the field and the tactics of play are emergent. Because they are emergent, players and counter-players must both become adept at evaluating the state of play and changing direction. In other words, everyone on the field must be able to learn their way to more effective unfolding and emergent strategies based on an evaluation of tactics against stated goals.
While it is usually assumed that non-players are agnostic to the outcomes of play this is not that case. Umpires are often suspected of being biased in their decision-making and neutrality is sought in non-players.
Another way of understanding the stance of non-players in terms of the outcomes of play, is that they put their faith in the nature of collaborative play, as opposed to instrumentally manipulating the outcomes or promoting an outcome which sees one side winning and another losing.
In other words, non-players, also sometimes known as facilitators, may well be as attached to particular outcomes as any player or counter-player. They are as concerned as any player or counter-player about outcomes, about the environment, injustice, or poverty.
Non-players, however, consciously make the choice of setting aside their anxieties and
