<nettime> new dialectic of play

[dafermos@datahost.gr]

The New Dialectic of Play

George N. Dafermos
dafermos [at] datahost [dot] gr

October 2005.


Games, like institutions, are extensions of social man and of the body
politic, as technologies are extensions of the animal organism. --
MARSHALL McLUHAN


In Douglas Rushkoff's recent work one frequently meets the implicit hope
that juvenile videogame players, when they come of age, will assume a
different attitude toward many things the previous generation accepted
as given and never bothered to question as to their social legitimacy.
It is thus hoped that this generation of joystick capitalists and social
hackers, having learnt from game-playing to look for way-outs and
parallel or alternative solutions where none seemed to exist, will
search for and discover new ways to incubate a mass culture of curiosity
in which tinkering with the underpinning principles of political,
social, and economic organisation is massively encouraged.[1] But this
optimistic voice has been heard before. From Johan Huizinga's and
Marshall Sahlins's belief in the innate capacity and desire of human
beings to organise and structure life around play and playfulness to the
protean consciousness proposed by Robert Lifton as a coping mechanism
structured around the many personas and avatars that nowadays younger
people 'dress themselves with' in order to accommodate the demands being
placed upon them in a time where one is always-on and always-connected
to different communities, play has been offered as the only fix capable
of injecting some vital versatility, harmony, and equilibrium into our
turbulent, laden with anxiety, overburdened lives.[2] However, this hope
for liberation and harmony through play is not only limited to the scope
of one's free time, but it extends well beyond it to the work shift.

I have come across a good many Web developer saying half-jokingly that
developing a Website is half real work and half play. [3] Or half art,
half work, whatever. But if play and fun consists in spouting out,
churning out line after line, frame after frame, template after
template, Website after Website, hour after hour, day after day, and
weeks go by, then I am sorry but I cannot see how this can be much of a
funny or empowering line of work. Yes, there are Web developers on the
payroll of creative agencies whose work content is nothing but creative.
Developing ten nearly identical Websites per day can be seen as a
creative thing to do only in a very twisted, pathetic, and ironic way.
Developing a Website for oneself, as a personal project kind of, with no
employment contract involved, could be fun, I suppose. So, too, would
being a Web developer with CICV [4], working inside a refurnished old
castle in rural France, on a project commissioned by a commercial
organisation which is demanding nothing less and nothing more than an
innovative Website, no strings attached, under the spiritual leadership
of a world renowed digital art connaisseur like Bongiovanni. At CICV,
whose raison d'etre is to explore and accelerate the convergence of
creative art and digital lifeforms, work consists in researching, and
research consists in working. And both should be geared at exploring new
ground, doing something that has not been done before, building
technology artifacts that none has dared to build before. But there are
no job definitions at CICV. Everyone working there is an artist. Dreams
and fantasy worlds, like the CICV universe, do indeed exist in real
life. And real people are being paid real money to work (or play) there.
But unfortunately dreams and fantasy worlds do not last forever. CICV
has recenly bitten the dust, a deceased research centre, once buzzing
and steaming with life, now left to decay.[5] What is the moral of this
story? Maybe the death of CICV will serve as a symbolic death, a
symbolic manifestation of the practicalities (or contradictions)
inscribed in the daily practice of coding for a living. Waged Web
developers can hardly be ?artists?. Or anyway most of the times when
they choose to function as artists, they cannot expect to be making a
decent wage. Choose your life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a
mortgage payment. Or choose art and autonomy instead. But if that is
what you choose, then you might as well have known better. For real art
and autonomy, that is, of the complete and absolute kind (which, said
otherwise, is not reducible to the product of one's labour, but, rather,
can only have a meaning in the context of the way one leads his or her
whole life), have little to do with commodified work (in fact, they have
nothing to do with any kind of work, since work, if conceived in its
purest form, consists in the artificial and forced rotation of life
about the dual axis of production - consumption).

And despite all this, the search for inner meaning through play and
playfulness is alive and kicking wherever one turns to. The hope is
still kept alive. Increasingly, in the business and management
literature, employees are being portrayed as soccer players, and
managers are being re-conceptualised as coaches. The market, once
referred to as the battlefield, is now understood through images of
green football fields.[6] Weird? Interesting? Perhaps. Nowadays,
businesses reinvent themselves and their work environments to become
more pleasant to their players. Kodak, in Rochester, New York, has a
'humor room' packed with toys, videos, and all sorts of games to keep
its players well entertained.[7] Such stories abound. And every single
one of them points to one direction: commercial entities, if they wish
to remain alive in today's ultra-volatile environment by attracting and
retaining the human capital required to make this wish come true, should
reinvent themselves and work inside them along the lines of play and
art. The title of Joseph Pine's and James Gilmore's hugely influential
business book The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre and Every Business
a Stage speaks for itself. Pine and Gilmore advocate that corporations
should be run like theatrical performances, with scriptwriters,
directors, producers, and performers substituting for workers, managers,
planners, and shareholders. The new concept of work is defined through
shiny stories and glossy metaphors made to fit with the post-industrial
reality in which every business, if it is to survive, ought to be run
like a showbiz.[8] And plenty of management academics and superstar
consultants, from Malone and Laubacher[9], Kao [10], Pauell [11], Evans
and Wurster[12] to Joel Kotlin [13], are telling us that Hollywood is
now the defacto organisational model for running a business the right
way. Even Andy Grove, former chairman of Intel, has likened the modus
operandi of the software industry to the way theatrical and Hollywood
productions are being put together.[14] But make no mistake, the
hollywoodisation of business and the alleged reinvention of work around
theatre and play is often misleading for it represents only one side of
the coin that knowledge workers are tossing, unaware of the darker side
that hides beneath.

Had he been alive to witness all this, Herbert Marcuse would have shot
himself in the face. What once Marcuse defined as antithetical to work
and productivity [15] is now being taken for a spin by the
cultural-industrial complex, albeit in a twisted form, ending up
reinvented as the basis for the operationalisation of
cognitive-informational capitalism, serving as the ultimate
rationalisation of the spectacle to the extent that play becomes
indistinguishable from work. Though this claim may sound exaggerated at
first ? indeed, how on earth could authentic play be considered work? -
suffice to say that reality-shows, which are nothing but media-mediated
dialy routines in which the theatre of the absurd takes on a push-button
dimension with the addition of faceless spectators who vote
electronically for the direction of the show (ie. evicting players out
of the game, rewarding players), pay people to play. In the world of
reality-TV game shows, players are workers, and vice versa. The day when
even a claim as exaggerated as this one may seem now will be obvious is
not far. A new reality-TV game show, Human Resources[16], is designed
around the concept that players compete against one another for the
'privilege' to work. As expected, the game show has received fierce
criticism, especially from left-wing cultural critics and political
parties. But that is hardly important. What is more important is that
industrial-age definitions of play and work no longer apply to the
contemporary game. Now, stripped off of their original meaning, work and
play (or the juncture of work and play) are satisfying the requirements
of the spectacle for the establishment of a media-hypertrophic situation
in which the labourers involved in immaterial production cannot tell
with any degree of certainty whether they are working or playing. In
fact, for most of them, this question is entirely devoid of any meaning:
play has lost the erotic scent it once afforded, and its hedonistic
dimension has been incorporated in a trap designed for the mind. Now,
the project of work is no longer threatened by sexuality and
playfulness: workers are encouraged to indulge in any act of sex and
play they wish as long as they do it inside the office, and return back
to their work routines with reinvigorated enthusiasm. Contrast the
historical development: in Stalinist Russia factory workers were
prohibited from putting their hands in their pockets, so that they would
not even think of masturbating, whereas, by contrast, in reality game
shows workers-players are prohibited from leading an austere life. Game
over is now an oxymoron.


Notes.

[1] Rushkoff, Douglas. 2004. Open Source Democracy. Demos, at
http://www.rushkoff.com/downloads/opensourcedemocracy.pdf
[2] See Sahlins, Marshall. 2003. Stone-Age Economics. Routledge;
Huizinga, Johan. 1971. Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in
Culture. Beacon Press; and Lifton, Robert J. 1993. The Protean Self:
Human Resilience in an Age of Fragmentation. NY: Basic Books.
[3] Characteristically, in a Hotwired interview in 1998, Gregor
Rothfuss, a Web developer who sits at the board of the OSCOM (central
organisational for Open Source Content Management), when asked what he
liked the most about the Net, he replied: ?The very fine borders between
serious work and play when you design a Web site?.
http://hotwired.wired.com/members/98/05/geek0a.html
[4] URI: http://www.cicv.fr/
[5] See Rivoire, Annick. ?Art Digital: le CICV effac? du disque dur?,
Lib?ration, July, 22, 2004. http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=225391
[6] Nonaka, Ikujiro. 2001. Synthesizing Capability: A Key to Create a
New Reality, September 11, at http://itmnet.cba.hawaii.edu:82/Nonaka.ppt
[7] Kao, John. Jamming: the Art and Discipline of Business Creativity.
NY: Harper-Collins, 1996, pp.66-67.
[8] See Peters, Tom. 1994. Liberation Management. Pan.
[9] Laubacher, Robert J. and Malone, Thomas W. 1998. The Dawn of the
E-lance Economy, Harvard Business Review, September.
[10] Kao 1996.
[11] Powel, Walter W. Neither Market Nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of
Organization, Research in Organizational Behaviour, 12 (1990): 296-326.
[12] Evans, Philips and Wurster, Thomas. 1999. Blown to Bits: how the
new economics of information transforms strategy. Harvard Business
School Press.
[13] Kotkin, Joel and Friedman, David. ?Why Every Business Will Be Like
Show Business?, Inc., March 1995, p.66.
[14] Cited in Owen, Geoffrey and Kehoe, Louise. ?A Hotbed of High-Tech?,
Financial Times, June 28, 1992.
[15] Marcuse, Herbert. 1966. Eros and Civilization: A philosophical
inquiry into Freud. Beacon Press, and at
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/eros-civilisation/index.htm
[16] See Lachnit, Carroll. 2002. Playing the HR game - Between The Lines
- Human Resources - Television Program Review, November, at
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FXS/is_11_81/ai_94638421/print
.


Publication notes.

This text was prepared for the Medi@terra 05 Festival
(http://www.mediaterra.org), scheduled to take place in Athens, Greece,
in December 2005, as a complement to a presentation discussing the
appropriation of play by the spectacle; and is largely based on G.
Dafermos, The Critical Delusion of Immaterial Labour (October 2005,
unpublished manuscript). However, the Medi@terra 05 Festival has been
called off, and re-scheduled for Autumn 2006. In light of this, it is
very likely that this text will continue evolving, effectively mutating
into something quite different in the space of the following nine
months, for the purpose of the Medi@terra 05 Festival.


About the author.

George N. Dafermos is an independent researcher and author located in
Crete, Greece. He can be contacted via email at dafermos [at] datahost
[dot] gr.

**********************
HTML version: http://opensource.gr/hyperdrome/usr/dafermos/immaterial_labour/dialectic_of_play.html

PDF version:
http://opensource.gr/hyperdrome/usr/dafermos/immaterial_labour/dialectic_of_play.pdf
**********************


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net