Fabian Arlt · Hans-Jürgen Arlt Gaming is unlikely A Theory of Ludic Action Gaming is unlikely Fabian Arlt • Hans-Jürgen Arlt Gaming is unlikely A Theory of Ludic Action Fabian Arlt Hans-Jürgen Arlt Berlin, Germany Berlin, Germany ISBN 978-3-658-39963-4 ISBN 978-3-658-39964-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39964-1 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer VS imprint is published by the registered company Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature. The registered company address is: Abraham-Lincoln-Str. 46, 65189 Wiesbaden, Germany Preface A game is a mysterious thing and once it makes its way into the world, anything can happen. (Loosely based on Paul Auster, Leviathan) This book came about unexpectedly for its authors. One comes from the theory and practice of play, the other from the political economy of work. Both value, that is their scientific bridge, Luhmann’s concept of communication as the best approach to understanding social phenomena, including play and work. In familial conversa- tion about ongoing projects, the impression that the player and the worker could learn from each other solidified. And at some point we turned this impression into the decision to practically test what would come of thinking game, communication, and work together. We would like to be experts for the context. Our ambitions are for the relation- ships, the “in between.” Not the individual object, not an object in itself, not the isolated theme, it is the relations that are the research interest with which we ap- proach the game – primarily systematically, marginally, also historically. In view of the universality of the subject of play, this claim at first leaves one speechless, but a very great one gives courage. “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the basic feeling that stands at the cradle of true art and science. He who does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is, as it were, dead and his eye extinguished.”1 We have given the game the status of i mprobability 1 Einstein, A. (1953): My view of the world. Zurich Vienna: Europa Verlag [*1931], p. 10. Online https://gedankenfrei.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/mein-weltbild-albert-einstein.pdf (accessed 07 Nov. 2019). v vi Preface in order to understand why it was ubiquitous in the past and is commonplace in the present. The Wilmersdorfer Volkspark, where a lot of playing takes place, was our spiri- tus locus. It was not only the title of the book that came about during our walks and conversations together. We would like to thank Andreas Galling-Stiehler, Olaf Hoffjann, Jürgen Schulz, Jo Wüllner, and Rainer Zech for their criticism and sug- gestions, be it on individual chapters or on a full version of the manuscript. They pointed out inaccuracies and inconsistencies, all remaining ones are caused by us. We were also greatly helped by an intervention by Dirk Baecker. As an advocate for the readers, Sieglinde Rübel-Arlt defended their right to find not the very first sentences but a text that is as comprehensible and lively as possible. Berlin, Germany Fabian Arlt November 2019 Hans-Jürgen Arlt Contents 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.1 “Don’t Think, Just look” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.2 Incessant Talk about the Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 Function and Stubbornness of the Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2.1 Elementary Sociality: Interaction, Society, Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2.2 Theory Excursus: The Game, the Players and the Social Form of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.3 Self-Liberation: Temporarily Acting Without Commitment As If . . . 24 2.4 Self-Restraint: Qualities of Experience in the Nothing-Is-Impossible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3 The Game Discourse: Consensus, Contact, Counterpoints . . . . . . . . . 41 3.1 What Does “Acting As If” and “Without Obligation” Mean? With an Excursus on the Language Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 3.2 Common Characteristics of the Game in a Theoretical Light. . . . . . 54 3.3 The Ludic Action as a Pragmatic Paradox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 3.4 Without Play No Normality or Without Normality No Play? . . . . . . 64 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 4 Functional Changes and Variations of the Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4.1 Ludic Action Diversity, Historically and Systematically . . . . . . . . . 72 4.2 Play in the Tribal, Stratified, Modern, Digital Society . . . . . . . . . . . 75 4.3 Playing with Oneself and with Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 vii viii Contents 4.4 Playing with Themes, Signs and Media of All Kinds . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 5 Playing in the Digital Sandbox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .101 5.1 Computer as a Tool and Dissemination Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104 5.2 Interaction Between Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113 5.3 A Triple Ego Experience as Player, Observer and Played . . . . . . . .118 5.4 Killing Without Commitment: The Fascination of Violence and the Digital Ease of Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .123 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130 6 Transitions I: Expansions and Corruptions of the Game . . . . . . . . . . .135 6.1 The Game is Willing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137 6.2 Good Game, Bad Game: Patterns of Interpretation in Dissent . . . . .138 6.3 Gambling Addiction: A Seduction of the Game or Its Abuse? . . . . .141 6.4 Dreams of Purity and Realities of Success: Education and Economics Dominate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .143 6.5 Gamification – Bullshit or Gateway to a Better World . . . . . . . . . . .148 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151 7 Transitions II: Modern Play Spaces and the Ludic Basic Feeling of Digital Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 7.1 On a Voyage of Discovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156 7.2 Comparison or Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157 7.3 Temporary Voluntary Participation: Associations and Work Organisations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .158 7.4 Non-binding: Plurality of Meaning, Positive Law, Experience-Orientation of Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .159 7.5 Unexpected: An Insured Life in the as If . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .163 7.6 Always on: Mindfulness and Connectivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .166 7.7 The Continuing Invocation of the Game: Good Reasons, Dubious Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174 Introduction 1 Abstract It is about a theory of play. The work on the concept of play, which has a great tradition, is continued instead of leaving it at that, that basically everything can also be considered as play. An offer is made that, in view of the phenomenal diversity of games, does not cancel the sails of theory, but attempts to explain this diversity. In doing so, it does not follow the path of game studies, whose studies are typically preceded by a marginal note on the concept of games, in order to then devote themselves entirely to the digital world. Nor will it be con- cerned with a definition of the Ludic. As the one definition is a too simple wish, so the theory is a too dogmatic claim. The argumentation proceeds as a loop: the text establishes an idea of how play can be understood, holds on to it, and then turns its back on it in order to observe and describe play in its environments. Computers, mobile and immobile, are the most important tools of early twenty-first century society and at the same time its favourite toy. With digitalization, play is expanding, not to say exploding. As an activity, as a subject, and as a metaphor, play is gaining prominent social presence: “Play is in great demand, and not just where it boosts it” (Konietzky, 2012, p. 303). Gaming is receiving great public and growing scholarly attention and, despite all warnings of harmful effects, more gen- eral appreciation than ever before: “Computer games are the most vibrant art form of the 21st century” (Lischka, 2002, p. 134). People like to write and speak about computer games in superlatives, and for good reasons. “Computer and video games © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Fachmedien 1 Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2023 F. Arlt, H.-J. Arlt, Gaming is unlikely, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-39964-1_1 2 1 Introduction are of the utmost importance as a cultural asset, as a driver of innovation and as an economic factor,” said the German Chancellor in 2017 at the opening of the com- puter games trade fair “gamescom”, quoting the “father of kindergarten”, the edu- cator Friedrich Fröbel (1782–1852), with the words “the source of all good lies in play” (Merkel, 2017). 1.1 “ Don’t Think, Just look” Whenever, wherever and however people live together, besides everything else they do, they play. Play is often described, always evaluated and explained in highly different ways. In the “Encyclopedia of Philosophy” it is introduced thus: “‘Play’ (lat ludus) is an everyday language expression with wide margins of mean- ing. Instead of a coherent philosophical-historical development, one finds, distrib- uted throughout history, different positions of individual thinkers who – each in their own way – have established a way of using ‘play’ as a philosophical term. At the level of conceptual labelling, typical features, structures or functionalities of play are distinguished and demarcated against everything that is not play, e.g. against seriousness, the world of work, everyday life, etc. Insofar as a game can generate a specific world of its own, the concept of play is often also used as a metaphor that emphasizes the creative character of ludic world construction, the tension between freedom and binding by rules, or the immersion of humans in play”1 (Gebauer & Stern, 2010). Adding another explanatory approach to the definitions and conceptions is dar- ing if only because it seems to set Ludwig Wittgenstein’s advice at naught: “Don’t say: ‘They must have something in common, otherwise they wouldn’t be called games’ – but look whether they all have something in common. – For if you look at them, you will not see something that would be common to all of them, but you will see similarities, affinities, and quite a number of them. As I said, don’t think, but look!” (Wittgenstein, 1984, p. 277). Read in this way, that all theory is grey compared to the phenomenal multiplicity of practice, one can only agree and still 1 In the original, Spiel is abbreviated as S.