In An Educated Guess, Peter explores the ubiquity of the ‘Life as Game’ metaphor and the quasi-sacred importance accorded to ‘winning’. “We live to win!” & “The winner takes all!” — So everyone seems to say! We are generally fine with those maxims for the simple reason that we get to participate in the ‘game’ (even if it is rigged against the vast majority of individuals). Indeed, the ‘game metaphor’ feeds on our hope that we might one day achieve a ‘win’. We are taught — from the cradle to the grave, really — that ‘winning’ matters; that it makes us better, more important in the eyes of others… So of course, we try to ‘win’ without even considering the costs of ‘giving it all’ to the game.
On some level, the ‘Life as Game’ metaphor preys on our desire to be unique individuals: to be one of the few people who win the lottery of skills or the draw of life circumstances. It also preys (contributes to, really) on our narcissism. For indeed, aren’t the winners the most extraordinary individuals? Irony aside, the ‘winning’ metaphor couldn’t exist without losers. And why would one accept — willingly no less — to be one of those? In its extreme form, the ‘winning logic’ goes as far as implying that one must ‘win’ or else ‘be nothing’… for losers are (morally) worthy of being ignored, excluded and/or forgotten.
There lies our hang-over from Christianity: there must be something ‘wrong’ — morally wrong — in those who do not ‘win’. Because, for winning to be the result of one’s own prowess, work ethic and intelligence, losing must also be caused by some ‘personal failings’ for which the ‘losers’ are necessarily morally responsible. Voila! A justification to exclude any non-compliant individuals now hangs over all our heads!
Whether we wish to acknowledge it or not, the ‘life as game’ metaphor is our prevailing worldview: the Weltanschauung of our contemporary era. It is technically the Western/American ethos; now globalized like a finely tuned epidemic. Resistance is sporadic and losing. (Pun intended!). This ‘winning ideology’ crystallized during the Cold War, when ‘squashing communism’ became all-consuming. When the West ‘won’, we simply didn’t know how to reformulate our goal as a society (or more likely, we didn’t feel the need to because we had won; why bother to change?!).
Since the ‘Fall of the Wall’, the ‘Life as Game’ metaphor has run uncontested. It has taken roots so deep that we are becoming blind to its very presence. Movements like ‘Occupy Wall Street’ show that there are still undercurrents of resistance against the ‘winning’ mindset. However, since there isn’t yet an articulated alternative, the lullaby of our society still remains: “Go for the win; at all cost! (Or risk becoming obsolete…)”.
But what if I refuse to play? What happens then? What does that make me? A forfeiter! I haven’t shown up; hence technically, I lose. This has not been easy for me to accept.
I’ve struggled for a long time to accept this position. In fact, my coming-of-age existential crisis was propelled by that very awareness: that in attempting to ‘win’, I would potentially have to devote all my energy and subordinate my values to the altar of the market economy. And I would lose the closeness that I wanted to have in my relationships, because ‘winning’ required complete devotion to the ‘Life as Game’. Anyway, even if I play, there would always be someone more talented, someone more lucky, or at least someone less conscious of the alternatives that they are forgoing…
Growing up, my late step-dad would always say: “That’s part of the game!” He used the idiom mostly to express deep resignation. “That is part of the game!” became synonymous with: “There is nothing you nor I can do about it!”. He truly meant: “If you can’t beat them, join them!”. But on nights when he was in a particularly reflective mood, he would add: “Money can’t make you happy, but it certainly makes unhappiness easier to bear…”
To be fair to his memory, my step-dad came-of-age in a society that didn’t include him in the ‘Life a Game’: he was a French Canadian from St-Henry (a poor neighbourhood of Montreal). He fought to play in the big leagues (the Anglo blue moneyed). He dreamt of McGill Business School and gifted me that expectation as soon as I showed a head on my shoulders. But my step-dad genuinely wanted to play; more precisely, he wanted to test his resolve against those who were made by their circumstances.
So he played to ‘win’ — because there is really no point playing if one is not trying to win. In the end, he exceeded his wildest hopes (even if I didn’t go to McGill). He died wealthy and full of status, but he lost so much along the way… Some of it, he sacrificed willingly. Other losses were unanticipated consequences of the hard journey required to ‘do whatever it takes’.
It’s been 25 years since I met this man in the big office. I learned from him that some losses are soul-crushing — and not worth their bragging rights. When “playing the game amounts to yoking oneself to the compulsion to perform optimally and achieve maximally” (In The Swarm, Byung-Chul Han, p.33) — which sounds like becoming a highly disciplined robot — it might not be the ‘worth the trouble’. And maybe it’s not even ‘right’.
As Peter expressed in his essay, the entire social fabric of our society can only accommodate the narrative of the ‘players’ and the ‘winners’. Still, there are plenty of people who forfeit this ‘winning’ worldview and prefer to enjoy life for its simplicity. But the ‘winning’ mindset is so pervasive that it may even pervert the simple things that make life worth living: like women these days trying to outdo each other in their mothering skills! Motivations matter. And it seems that constant vigilance is necessary…
But even with so many people choosing alternative lifestyles, they seem to disappear from view… Maybe they are too busy leading their own lives to appear in pretty Instagrams? The ‘happy with less’ crowd doesn’t make the cover of magazines. So where are my roles-models?
Since the ‘Life as Game’ metaphor is a worldview, it cognitively structures everything we perceive. It filters and even defines the options that one perceives to have in making life choices. It is the ‘socially constructed ground’ on which our intersubjective lives are built. It is ideological ‘fodder’ masquerading as ‘Truth’. For a worldview ‘wins’ when it has become so ingrained in so many psyches that it is assumed to be the ‘natural’ state of human affairs. Indeed, at this point, why notice — let alone question — that which seems so obviously true?
To escape this worldview requires some type of ‘shock’. A health epiphany or the death of a loved one. A love-at-first-sight. Some event that makes one question the ‘why’ of their behaviours. But even if one comes to the realization that alternatives exist, individuals who dissociate themselves from a dominant worldview risk the incomprehension of their community. We ultimately risk exclusion and isolation — which activates the most primal fear of facing alone the indeterminacy of the world. I suspect that many people see glimpses of this realization and unconsciously tell themselves: “Let me ‘Escape my Freedom’. Just for today…”
Here comes the kicker: the more the ‘winning’ worldview ‘wins’, the harder it is to escape. The more ubiquitous it becomes, the more it stands unquestioned and unquestionable. So any alternative ways to be, to think, to act — any alternative schema/paradigm to cognitively structure our understanding of self, other and world — must now ‘fight’ against the dominant mindset simply to carve a space ‘to exist’ and verbalize itself as an alternative option. In other words, even if I didn’t want anything to do with the ‘Life as Game’ metaphor, I still must play ‘against’ it.
Even more horrid, let’s assume that now I have a well-defined alternative ‘worldview’. Let’s assume that it’s a great system of thoughts; that it makes sense, is logical and based on science; that it is inclusive and responsive to the agency of its participants. In other words, it’s not dogmatic, not too hard to understand (doesn’t require a Ph.D. in philosophy); it’s even compelling! I understand that this is quite a big assumption — but let’s pretend for a minute that I have published my Magnum Opus. What then?
Well, for this alternative to ‘take hold’ in the minds of real people, I must ‘play the game’ in a reality structured by the dominant ‘winning’ worldview. It will be like trying to play (ie. embody) different rules (ie. values) on an old Monopoly board (ie. capitalism). It will be awkward, full of internal tensions and inconsistencies.
More fundamentally, the success of worldviews — like those of Internet platforms — is based on adoption rates. It’s a numbers game (ie. majority rules) in which influencers get extra ‘points’ (ie. opinion leaders matter more). Since the ‘winning’ worldview emerged victorious from an ideological war (ie. the Cold War), it is perfectly adapted to rage it against any alternative.
Now, to my chagrin, I’m back (almost) to exactly where I started: I must engage in the ‘Life as Game’ metaphor (as the de facto socially constructed reality) with the intention to ‘meta-win’ (because I want my alternative worldview to prevail). I must give this fight all I can, though not all I got — because I must live a graceful and honourable life according to the precepts of my new worldview. I must be true to myself and serve as an example to others.
This ain’t going to be easy… Somehow, I knew that there was a catch in retiring to the country to become a philosopher. (Winky Smiley Face)