Incorporating Ritual into Greedy Institution Theory: The Case of Devotion in Amateur Chess

Abstract

Based on ethnographic data, this article explains devotion to chess in terms of the structural mechanisms of its social organization. I use Lewis Coser's theory of greedy institutions as a way to analyze how these mechanisms influence player decisions and foster devotion to the game. Inspired largely by Randall Collins, I expand Coser's original framework by analyzing how the ritual of competitive play is structured in ways to heighten the intrinsic rewards of the game and further encourage commitment among the players. As such, devotion in chess is explained as a product of the following organizational elements: (1) isolation from competing social spheres; (2) encapsulation within a symbolic status structure; (3) a collective feeling of elite status; (4) trials of worthiness; and (5) prestructured ritual. After considering how these mechanisms operate in the world of chess, I discuss the potential of this expanded model of greedy institutions for future research across other social contexts.

Mechanisms of Organizational Commitment: Adding Frames to Greedy Institution Theory

“…However, Coser did not summarize the “greedy” mechanisms he discussed. Therefore, I follow Puddephatt's () delineation of the “greedy” structural elements Coser () identified: (1) sanctions aimed at minimizing participation in outside social spheres; (2) anchoring of participants' identity within a symbolic status structure; (3) promotion of a feeling of exclusiveness or elite status, often based on moral distinctions between insiders and outsiders; and (4) trials of worthiness that cull and eliminate less devoted or weaker members so as to maximize cohesion within the group.…”

“…Research on microinteractional processes suggests that Coser's framework may be fruitfully expanded to include microstructural organizational elements that promote commitment and devotion. In Puddephatt's () study of amateur chess, an institution he defines as greedy based on Coser's framework, he drew on interaction ritual chains theory (IR theory) (Collins ) to explain chess players' devotion to the game. IR theory holds that interaction rituals—ranging from one‐on‐one conversations to stadium‐filled rock concerts—either charge participants up with emotional energy or drain them of this motivating force.…”

“…Drawing on IR theory, Puddephatt () analyzed the relationship between the structured ritual of competitive chess games and its potential to generate emotional energy that increases players' devotion to the game. He found that the strict organizational controls on competitive tournament play lead players to study intensively.…”

“…This study is aimed not only at winning matches but also at making each match close and long lasting, two qualities that maximize the emotional energy generated by the game. Puddephatt (:157–158) argued that “the top‐down structuring of preset ritual experiences is a key organizational feature of greedy institutions that is too often absent in their analysis.” Accordingly, he sought to expand Coser's original framework to include an additional element—top‐down, prestructured ritual—that operates on the microinteractional level to foster organizational commitment and loyalty.…”

“…In Coser's analysis of what he refers to as “greedy institutions,” he sought to answer a similar question by turning to the structural elements that foster participants' undivided commitment to particular institutions, including utopian communes, the traditional middle‐class family, and monastic sects . Over the subsequent 40 years, researchers have asked this question about a variety of demanding groups, ranging from the United States military and college athletic teams to amateur chess clubs and social and religious movements (e.g., Aalten ; Adler and Adler ; Perlow ; Puddephatt ; Rooks ; Segal ). Their answers have begun to dig deeper into the inner, microinteractional workings of groups.…”