More than a Game: Sociological Theory from the Theories of Games

Abstract

Sociologists are fond of game metaphors. However, such metaphors rarely go beyond casual references to generic games. Yet games are little social systems, and each game offers a distinctive perspective on the relationship between rules and constraints, on the one side, and emergent order, on the other. In this article, we examine three games-chess, go, and (Texas hold 'em) poker-for sociological insights into contested social arenas such as markets, warfare, politics, and the professions. We describe each game's rules and emergent properties, and then offer a brief theorization of the social world through the "lens" of that game. Then we show how a study of the three games advances the sociology of strategy by enriching ideas about skill, position, and strategic dilemma.

What kind of game is everyday interaction?

“…When everyday interaction has been investigated in terms of games, sociologists have tended to be interested more in potential game analogies of social situations than in utilizing game theory to analyse them (cf. DiCicco-Bloom and Gibson, 2010: 249; Leifer, 1988).…”

All the News That Fits to Print: Desk Competition for Front‐Page Space at The New York Times1

“…Impetus is particularly important in settings such as these where resource control has to be continuously reasserted and renewed. That is, unlike, say, a military’s control of territory, or a go player’s control of board space (DiCicco‐Bloom and Gibson, 2010), a person does not control conversational speaking time in one period simply by virtue of having done so in the prior period, and the same can be said of a department’s share of university money, particularly when university finances are strapped and competition is fierce and this year’s allocation does not automatically reflect last year’s (Hills and Mahoney, 1978). Rather, in such settings, status translates into resource control only if it has impetus with which to work.…”

Manipulation in Board Game Interactions: Being a Sporting Player

“…Goffman has analyzed motivation and strategy (1971), as a members' concern; his analyzes of hypothetical instances provides an excellent starting point to understand the contingencies of strategic play (such as the assumption of motivation, the problem of doubt, and the double bluff problem). However, Goffman's analysis concerned how games can and cannot provide a metaphor for real interaction (a common issue in social analysis, see DiCicco‐Bloom and Gibson ). We are not the first to raise concerns that games cannot solely be considered as metaphors (e.g., Puddephatt ), but analysis of actual game play as arising from interaction is less common.…”