Abstract
The recent rise of gamification lead to a revival of the traditional game studies debate on the relationship between games and society, a key theme since Huizinga, Caillois, and Suits. Yet quite surprisingly, the works of these three authors, Caillois in particular, have mainly been used to establish notable antecedents, not been reevaluated nor discussed. The following pages will first explain the reasons behind these overlooking, taking advantage of the gamification debate to compare the actual theories on the relationship between games and society, subsequently recalling Caillois’ position, pointing out analogies and differences between the present and past stances. Secondly, this article will discuss the reasons to introduce the thought of Caillois in the current debate, showing compatibility between his theories and contemporary reflections, suggesting the possibility to use them to understand gamification, by observing the long-term analogies between games and societies and the role performed by mimicry.
Keywords
In his 2010 TED talk (a set of conferences, run across different nations, with emphasis on innovative ideas, theories or discoveries) “When games invade real life,” (https://www.ted.com/talks/jesse_schell_when_games_invade_real_life [accessed May 11, 2016]) game designer Jess Schell predicted a future in which points, trophies, and leaderboard scores would be regularly used to evaluate and drive people’s behavior, just as in video games. This forecast was somewhat realized shortly afterward with the birth of the concept of gamification. The term, originally coined in 2003 by Nick Pelling (Werbach & Hunter, 2012, p. 25), was later seized and rapidly disseminated by marketing experts and companies.
Gamification has brought to public attention new applications based on points, rewards, and difficulty levels made to shape individual activities or experiences according to the rules of games. Gamified apps and platforms are nowadays used in multiple environments: in fitness (e.g., Nike+ runner), in education (Khan Academy, Duolingo), at the workplace (Salesforce) or for leisure (FourSquare), and for commercial purposes (Steam).
Since its inception, the phenomenon has seen—and still sees—a complex exchange of views between promoters (Bunchball, 2010; Herger, 2014; Werbach & Hunter, 2012; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011) and scholars (mainly in the collective papers of Deterding & Walz, 2015, and Fuchs, Fizek, Ruffino, & Schrape, 2014), in order to describe it and reflect on its impact in contemporary culture.
Specifically, many scholars linked the emergence of gamification to a more general increase in the importance and visibility of games within the media system (Raessens, 2014 hypothesizes a ludic turn) to a spread of playful attitudes and patterns in society (Ortoleva, 2012) and to a cultural environment in which games and society are more and more intertwined and blended (Deterding & Walz, 2015: Gameful world theory).
Of course, the relationship between games and society has long been a central theme of the study of games, at least since the well-known works of Huizinga (1938/2002), Caillois (1961), and Suits (1978). All their work was committed to stating and explaining the cultural relevance of games, their anthropological value, and their role in modernity.
On the other hand, the current landscape in game studies involves methods and frameworks particularly distant from the origin of the discipline, both theoretically and epistemologically. In the actual discussion on gamification (with the exception of Fuchs et al., 2014), it seems to be implied that the contemporary relationship between games and society is an innovative and unprecedented phenomenon. The recent debate seems, therefore, to focus on understanding the recent ties and interactions between ludicity and social practices, having already taken into account the cultural importance of playfulness.
As a result, very little space in the debate is given to the reassessment of 20th-century theories, even when they examine in detail possible patterns of interaction between games and societies, as in Roger Caillois’s work. Apart from his well-known definition of play and his classification of games concepts which are largely quoted (e.g., in Werbach & Hunter, 2012; Deterding, 2015; or even with simplifications, as in Kapp, 2012, p. 139), his theories on the relationship between games and societies are generally overlooked or ignored.
Considering the authority and relevance of the author, it could be interesting to inquire about the causes for this indifference. Perhaps these are due to the historical or cultural differences between past and contemporary debate, or result from the great theoretical and methodological distance between Caillois and current game studies theories, or can be explained by today’s limited knowledge of and acquaintance with his thought.
Therefore, the aim of this article is two fold: (1) to reassess Caillois’s theories on the relationships between games and society and compare them to the current debate on gamification, explaining divergences, and highlighting possible affinities and (2) to check if these theories can somehow contribute to the current debate on gamification and support the understanding of gamification and its outcomes.
The following pages will be organized as follows: In the next paragraph, gamification will be introduced using two case studies, Steam and Foursquare/Swarm, respectively. In the following chapter, there will be discussion about the different theories addressing the relationship between games and society from the perspectives of gamification promoters, scholars, and Caillois. These three positions will be compared in an effort to highlight the reasons for the dismissal of Caillois’s theories. In the last chapter, the introduction of the thought of Caillois in the current debate on gamification will be suggested and discussed, showing specific compatibility between his theories and contemporary thought, and the possibility of using them to shed some light on the concept of gamification will be considered.
Gamification: Definition and Case Studies
The first issue regarding the gamification debate is the lack of a universally accepted definition of the phenomenon and the identification of its specific features. The early description of gamification as the use of game elements and thinking in applications other than games (Bunchball, 2010; Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011) contributed to labelling gamification as a series of heterogeneous applications, ranging from serious games (e.g., Foldit 1 ) to contests based on playful solutions (e.g., The Fun Theory 2 ) to educational applications of actual games (e.g., World of Warcraft or Minecraft) and to nonludic examples, intended as forms of protogamification (lotteries, frequent flyer programs, vouchers, slot machines, etc.).
Deterding, Dixon, Khaled, and Nacke (2011, p. 2) tried to clarify the term, defining gamification as “the use of game design elements in non-game contexts,” basing it on a double opposition (elements of games vs. whole games, game-centered experience vs. play centered) to distinguish it from other known processes, such as serious games (entire games + game based), toys (entire games + playful nature), and playful design (elements + playful nature).
Yet the definition provided by Deterding et al. is not completely definitive: It does not specify the complexity and level of game design involved, incidentally supporting the claim made by some marketers (Herger, 2014; Kumar & Herger, 2013; among others) that platforms such as Amazon and eBay employ gamification techniques by having points and scores as part of their review system. Secondly, it blurs the distinction between single gamified apps and the broader cultural phenomenon of interaction between games and society, defined by various labels and theories and sometimes by the very term gamification (e.g., Fuchs, 2014).
Even so, there do exist many applications considered to be typical examples of gamification, featuring complex game design dynamics which have been used as a model for successive solutions. Foursquare/Swarm and Steam will be used as case studies and analyzed: Despite their differences, they provide two of the clearest examples of gamification available.
Foursquare/Swarm was an App for smartphones featuring a location-based system in which users could search for nearby friends and meet; the main quality of Foursquare was the possibility of allowing people to “check-in” near shops or meeting places, signalling their position to friends while gaining points (and badges) related to the location they visited. By gaining more points than other users, they could become the mayor of the place, gaining status in their circle and even special discounts. By 2014, Foursquare had split into two apps: the new Foursquare, intended primarily as a discovery app, and Swarm, which inherited all the gamification dynamics, providing location-based apps for social interactions.
Steam is a web-based platform for selling games in digital formats that has become increasingly influenced by game elements over the years. Every Steam user has a profile and buying games earns the user experience points (XPs), special tradable cards, and other items. Users can progress through levels by buying games, by collecting cards, and crafting items, or by completing special assignments/badges.
The Steam and Foursquare/Swarm systems combine several layers of elements and dynamics of gamification, which can be summarized as follows: Both apps feature a simple point system as a measure of user progress. In Swarm, users gain Coins by checking in at different locations and by meeting with friends or becoming the mayor of a place. In Steam, every purchase made in the platform grants a specific amount of XPs needed to level up as a user. While Steam user levels and XP are cumulative, Swarm Coins are emptied every week. Both apps feature achievement systems (with virtual trophies/badges as rewards) for completing specific accomplishments/actions. In Swarm, users gain stickers (the old Foursquare badges) by visiting specific places, making check-ins at certain hours, or by chance. In Steam, users can gain XP through the acquisition of badges, starting with introductory ones (by completing a tutorial of the basic functions of the application) to those based on the amount of purchases or on user seniority. Since 2015, Swarm has included the much-missed Foursquare leaderboard and mayor features; the first lets users challenge friends to gain more coins weekly, while the latter is calculated among all Swarm users based on the number of place-related check-ins every month. Both Steam and Swarm provide additional game dynamics involving real-world money and benefits. In Swarm, business owners can grant users who check-in regularly special offers through Foursquare. Steam features a collectible/tradeable card system linked to the game catalogue. Cards are obtained either by playing games or through exchange. Each card is part of a set and can be traded and sold to other players for a specific prize (in real money) or for other cards. Completing the set grants users-specific badges, items, and XP. The same system is used for card trades (Steam Market) and lets the user convert items in their inventory into packs of cards or badges, especially during holiday sale events (see below). In addition, until December 2015, Steam designed interactive competitions called holiday sale events, often creating game-like contests or meta-games where users could gather points, earn special cards or items, and craft medals and objects to be exchanged, in order to unlock new offers and discounts or simply achieve status in the community. This feature was abandoned for reasons that will be specified later on.
Both of these examples used the overlapping of points, badges, leaderboards—also called PBL triad (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011)—and collectibles to shape the user experience by making it similar to games. Game mechanics and dynamics are used to provide a sense of meaning and progression in activities, establishing specific goals and rewarding users for their accomplishments. They create opportunity for social interaction, sharing, and competition/cooperation, while providing a sense of agency and meaningfulness in what are supposed to be undistinguished everyday activities.
In the following pages, we will see how, through gamification, promoters and scholars interpret the relationship between games and society, highlighting the dynamics of this interaction and its outcomes. The theories of Roger Caillois will be introduced later. Finally, the three stances will be compared, and we will try to show the reasons for the dismissal of Caillois’s theories.
Comparing Theories: Games and Society
Evangelists, Promoters, and Designers
Due to its original nature as a marketing practice, gamification developed its own theory in a rather heterogeneous way, pulling together practical lessons from its makers, 3 popular books about gaming, and a vast range of behavioral-related theories.
Jane McGonigal’s New York Times bestseller Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us Better and How They Can Change the World (2011) became one of the popular manifestos for gamification and can be considered a peak of “narratives of redemption” for video games (Carbone & Ruffino, 2012). While McGonigal generally talked about the possibility of using fully-fledged games to tackle social issues and problems, most promoters and evangelists endorsed her theories by using them as the legitimizing basis for the new-born gamification movement.
Based on these redemptive theories, the uniqueness of the ludic framework is relatively clear: Games are an engaging and efficient framework for all human activity. They are able to reduce or solve frustration, alienation, or inefficiency in everyday practices.
According to McGonigal, a game paradigm lets us rethink daily activities, focusing on individual needs and bringing forth positive reactions and emotions. Games feature clear and simple rules and objectives, the possibility to make choices, and the freedom to experiment; they are based on fair judgement, and the effort and the results achieved by players are appropriately rewarded. Contrary to everyday life—which is certainly not designed to adapt according to the needs of individuals—games (and gamification) are seen as a model of fair, motivating, encouraging, and efficient life. According to this discourse, games become a solution to a whole range of social problems (boredom and frustration, the gap between needs and skills, performance anxiety, lack of cooperation, etc.).
The main effort of the gamification movement was not limited to endorsing and spreading these theories but to provide different sources of confirmation and assessment of them, through a whole range of scientific theories (at least initially) formulated independently of games, yet rapidly adapted to them. These multiple theories explain and measure both in-game dynamics and real-life effectiveness, highlighting the link between ludic and social dynamics: Games transform tedious and repetitive activities into oriented and designed paths through the introduction of challenges and a progression system. This principle is explained and assessed through positive psychology theories (Rigby, 2015), especially through the self-determination theory (SDT) of Deci and Ryan (2000), which considers the search for “competence” as a strong intrinsic motivator. Gamification is an example of the perfect social(-ized) experience, in which activities lacking recognition (e.g., running, going to the gym, make donations, learning) are turned into visible acts which can be commented on and supported by friends or acquaintances. The benefit of a socialized experience is explained through the second of the three intrinsic motivators of SDT—the desire for relatedness—and through marketing theories about behavior driven by social status as stated by Zichermann in his SAPS hierarchy, “a rewarding typology, including Stuff, Access, Power, Status, ordered from the least to the most engaging” (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011, p. 10). Games create challenges adapted to the actual skill of players, calibrating the tasks on the perceived competence of users, providing tutorials, and including new obstacles only when players can learn how to overcome them. The balance between difficulty, individual skill, and engagement is believed to be a strong motivational incentive, following Csikszentmihalyi’s theory of Flow (1975) and generally positive psychology. Game judgment is believed to be fair and just and designed to mix different types of reward: XPs as a measure of competence (XP), the possibility of unlocking new areas/levels/skills, or simply aesthetic gear for players’ avatars. These rewards often involve randomness, and in some cases, the necessity to repeat specific actions to achieve the desired reward (a phenomenon known as grinding; see Nicholson, 2014). Reward system and grinding dynamics are explained through the mechanisms of behaviorist psychology (see Linehan, Kirkman, & Roche, 2015) and in particular, Skinner’s theory of positive reinforcement and its evolution, according to Fogg (2003).
Through gamification promoters and evangelists, the link between games and society is relatively straightforward: Games are a perfect solution to the limits and issues of contemporary life. Games are considered a framework of a perfectly designed individual experience, focusing on positive emotions (engagement, fun, relatedness), possibility for improvement (adjustable challenges, efficient training, striving for good performance), and fair evaluation and reward. Despite the utopic claim of a framework to design perfect activities and solutions, the practical usefulness of games is validated by theories outside of the field of game design. In this way, the relationship between games and society is depicted as a one-directional and unprecedented interaction.
Researchers and Scholars
The current academic debate on gamification brings together a critique of theories proposed by marketing experts in an attempt to provide a proper definition for the phenomenon and explanations for its emergence.
Aside from specifically critical positions (Bogost, 2015) which believe gamification to be just a marketing buzzword, one of the most common concerns is expressed as the need to “rethink gamification” (Fuchs et al., 2014, introduction); that is, to stress the fallacies of the common rhetoric of gamification—trying to explain its current limits and oversimplification, providing further insights into possible enhancement or improvements (see Deterding, 2014).
The main concerns involve the undefined nature of the word: The term is believed to be too dependent on specific examples (mainly free-to-play games and Massively Multiplayer Online Games [MMOGs]; Deterding, 2015, p. 35) to provide limited and simplified definitions of game mechanics and dynamics (mainly competitive dynamics and aleatoric rewards system; see Ferri, 2014; Sicart, 2015), leading to what has been called pointsification (Robertson, 2010). In addition, the vagueness of the borders between games and nongames makes it possible to affirm a direct genealogy with specific products and practices (loyalty programs, contests, slot machines, etc.) hardly related to ludicity itself.
On the other hand, Deterding and Walz (2015) observed how the contemporary interaction between games and society is not simply one directional but instead is complementary and symmetrical, composed not only of the above-mentioned ludification of culture—the hegemony of abstract models of games, which extends to nonludic activities or practices—but also to the cultivation of ludus, a process of change and hybridization withstood by games under the influence of society and its economic and cultural drives. For instance, the emergence of professional e-sports circuits also resulted in the development of sponsors, bets, doping, and lawsuits. Equally significant is the rise of in-app purchases, with the emergence of pay-to-win dynamics or the spread of grinding as a tool to boost transactions (e.g., Clash of Clans, SimCity BuildIt) and not forgetting the illegal trade of virtual currencies into real ones (gold farming phenomenon, Heeks, 2010).
Both Steam and Foursquare provide interesting examples, showing how the implementation of game dynamics and mechanics can cause specific (and unforeseen) consequences in everyday behavior. In Foursquare, the competitive dynamics involved in the mayor system clashed with the social nature of sharing a user’s position (Foxman, 2014). It seems the negative outcomes of extreme competition involved in the race to be mayor was one of the reasons for the birth of Swarm and the separation of gamified dynamics (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6814/20140512/foursquare-freezes-mayorships-andbadges-prepares-for-roll-out-of-swarm.htm [accessed May 11, 2016]). Steam recently decided to stop its summer events after the controversy related to Summer Adventure 2014 (http://www.pcgamer.com/how-the-internet-tried-to-rig-the-steam-summer-sale-and-howvalve-is-trying-to-stop-them/ and http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-community-broke-the-steamsale-so-valve-changed-th-1595087682 [accessed May 11, 2016]), where users coordinated on reddit to fix the contest through a mutual noncompetition agreement, pushing Valve to suddenly change the rules during the contest, generating many complaints and various additional issues. In both cases, it could be said that the use of gamified dynamics backfired due to the contradiction of preexisting sociocultural behavioral norms and values.
All these examples support the views of Deterding (2015) who claimed that much of the success of gamification favors the return of a liminal function of games (organic in society) compared to the preexistent liminoid state (separate and confined to specific areas or moments), typical of the modern division between ludic and nonludic activities (Turner, Harris, & Park, 1983). The actual cultural landscape sees more and more games as an organic phenomenon embedded in everyday reality not separated and opposed to the seriousness of life.
Yet, Deterding (2015) goes back to Sutton-Smith (1997) supporting the claim that much of the current debate about games and society is due to a proliferation of modern rhetorics of play in the gameful world, with each theory based on different concepts of games and, as a result, referring to specific qualities and values of play and each one using different games as a perfect example of their theory. In Deterding’s view, gamification is the result of the simultaneous applications of the rhetorics of Feedback and Nudging (p. 39).
In conclusion, while these works manage to explain some features of gamification, defining its aspects and going beyond some shortcomings and simplifications, they still do not provide a unitary framework to explain the causes and effects of the emergence of games in the contemporary world and the nature of this relationship. On the contrary, it is not totally clear if gamification has to be considered principally a marketing rhetoric or if it is a phenomenon that gradually highlights the changes in contemporary culture. Finally, it is not completely clear if the rhetoric of play are caused by the rise of games as a medium or vice versa; that is, if the rhetoric themselves (provided by evangelists, scholars, players, etc.) supported and endorsed the media and economic rise of games and gamefulness.
Roger Caillois
While still considered a basic text for modern studies on games, Man, Play and Games has a heterogeneous appeal. The success achieved by Callois’s definition of play or the classification of games is only comparable to the fade into obscurity of the chapters discussing the social function of games and the relationships between games and the society. What could be called a “positivist” reading of Caillois would focus on the use of his classification outside the framework of his theory, generally forgetting that in Man, Play and Games, ludic categories (agon, alea, mimicry, ilinx) are not exclusive of games but are cultural attitudes shared by games and societies. On the contrary, retracing his observations, the cultural values of games classification is highlighted as a key point for the understanding of games and societies: Play is correlated with culture, the most remarkable and complex manifestations of which are closely allied to the structure of games, or else the structure of games is diffused to reality and institutionalized in legislation, becoming imperious, constraining, irreplaceable, preferred—in a word, rules of the social game, norms of a game which is more than a game. (Caillois, 1961/2001, p. 64) The taste for competition, the pursuit of chance, the pleasure of simulation, and the attraction of vertigo certainly seem to be the principal effects of games, but their influence infallibly penetrates all of social life.…It is appropriate to inquire whether the principles of play (agon, alea, mimicry, ilinx), outside of games, are not also unequally diffused through different societies. In this way, the alleged differences may result in important contrasts in the collective and institutional behavior of peoples. (pp. 85–86) As noted in the introduction of Man, Play, Games, on one hand, games have always been considered as a central metaphor for life and society (Gozzi, 1990; Suits, 1967), as the principles of play reflect the fundamental dispositions of contemporary society, even in an abstract form. For this reason, the structures of play can be institutionalized and become part of the “social game.” On the other hand, games and play, especially mimicry-based ones, build themselves by taking, for example, a whole range of “serious” activities (imitating war, tasks in the workplace, everyday activities, and so on), using them as a model, and translating them through a process of abstraction, analogy, and imitation.
When debating with Huizinga and his critics about the nature of games, Caillois’s (1961/2001, p. 64) position is that games, for the above-mentioned reasons, are both origins and residues of culture. While in certain cultures, playfulness was an integral part of rituals and institutions because games were functional elements of an undivided culture, in modernity, with the specialization of institutions on the one hand, and the separation of ludicity as a specific activity on the other, games have become a residual activity, reminiscent of religious, juridical, and poetical roles, while at the same time imitating “serious” activities.
The author goes beyond this by saying that these “constant and universal” attitudes could be used as a general classification to understand and chart-specific dynamics of societies (1961/2001, pp. 85–86). His insight into the social corruption of games, and his proposal of a sociology derived from games, are key elements of Man, Play and Games.
On the contrary, looking at the whole work, it could be said that his interest in games is partly due to the possibility of recognizing, through them, specific human constants: in wars (Caillois, 1961), rituals (1960), mineral (1970), and animal camouflage (1960), these recurring attitudes are inevitably identified and recognized.
Caillois’s attraction to these everlasting principles of human behavior could derive from his unique interpretation of surrealist theories (Cheng, 2009); his position as “the edge of surrealism” (Claudine, 2003) was partly based on his search to merge midcentury sociology/anthropology with reflections on universal biological drives and to combine intellectual rigor with the necessity of imaginative interpretations.
It could even be said that Caillois went as far as transforming the surrealist beliefs into a theoretical project: His project of diagonal science can be seen as an attempt to reproduce in theoretic speculations the same cross-bordering taxonomies and monstrous analogical thinking that drove the imagination of the surrealists (Eidelpes, 2014): I recall that science believes men and insects to be the two opposed poles of biological evolution. The forms taken by life become more and more complex. It is true that they develop along paths which become separated and incompatible. But my tentative postulation is that complexity itself creates certain relationships, implying similarities and demanding analogous answers in response to analogous problems. (Caillois, 1960/1998, p. 16 [translation mine])
Comparisons
The three stances reported in the previous pages address the relationship between games and society quite differently. While gamification promoters support the idea that games are unilaterally addressing real life issues, both Caillois and game studies observe a reciprocal interaction between games and societies. Still, Caillois envisages internal processes based on long-term reciprocal imitation and analogy between the two spheres, while the game studies suppose a short-term external cause to this contamination. Caillois aims at a reflection on general and universal concepts, based on macrocategories and constant cultural effects, while game studies are working on contingency and specific events.
Caillois’ belief in the existence of a common substratum of human attitudes, shared by games and societies, is probably the most prominent difference (and the most difficult to tackle) between his theories and the modern debate. It could well be the main cause for the limited use of his concepts, and for the selection of specific classifications, separated from their theoretical framework.
Indeed, while the difficulty in endorsing Caillois’s ontology (his surrealist substratum) is rather evident, this does not imply, necessarily, the need to view his classifications and theories by their theoretical premises, limiting them to exclusively game-related concepts. On the contrary, reconsidering his thoughts on the relationship between games and society could bolster the meaning of his “classical” assumptions and could let us verify whether the consequences of his thoughts could still be useful and meaningful in the modern debate.
For these reasons, in the next chapter, the theories of Caillois will be further analyzed, in order to verify whether they could be integrated with the actual debate on gamification.
Speculations: Mimicking Gamers
Edges and Frontiers
In the previous pages, I presented some of the main issues related to the understanding of gamification; many of them are related to the difficulty of establishing a threshold between games and nongames when defining gamification itself. A problem arises with Deterding’s 2011 definition, which does not specify the size or complexity of game design elements involved. It is intensified by promoters’ (Zichermann & Cunningham, 2011) examples of lotteries, loyalty programs, and so on, as case studies of protogamification and their frequent use of comparisons with slot machine dynamics. In addition, the benefits described as deriving from game models are not common to all games but are basically inspired by specific typologies, featuring agon and alea mechanics, and modeled after MMOG, free-to-play games.
Both in Steam and in Swarm, we can find dynamics generally used in free-to-play games and, in limited extent, in loyalty programs: specific actions grant points (xp in Steam, coins in Swarm) which act as a measureable form of progress in a grinding environment. They strenghten a system of gatherings/possessions (cards in Steam, stickers in Swarm) that features scarcity and mixed virtual/real rewards. Users’ actions are all backed up by social interaction dynamics (Mayorship in Swarm, Holiday Sales event in Steam) involving social pressure, nudging competition and cooperation, improving user’s engagement, and, most of all, the frequency and duration of users’ interactions with the system. Above all, these gamified systems provide no ending or conclusion, precisely as in facebook games (Farmville, etc.) or in MMOGs. They are designed to create an engaging experience in itself that can be indefinitely played by users.
As a consequence of these issues, it seems that the features defined as typical of games are neither exclusive nor common to games in general. Their label as game design elements seems to be more based on “gamification rhetoric,” or on their integration in a coherent user experience, than on their origin as specifically ludic dynamics.
On the other hand, it could be stated that among all the existing game dynamics and mechanics, only those games which provide a prior overlapping/translatability into the world of social needs and practices are exported and selected in order to match the needs and aims of gamified applications.
This assumption seems to conflict with Caillois’s theory of shared properties between games and societies. For him, games are modeled on everyday activities, and societies have been institutionalizing the structure of play and games, long before gamification.
This reciprocal imitation could be considered to result in a specific inter-translatability and analogy between them, providing a background for the gamification phenomenon. Whether due to historical, cultural, or (as Caillois thought) universal reasons, it could be useful to discuss if this overlapping between games and societies can be linked to the emergence of gamification and could address some of the doubts and limits of the debate.
Taking Games Seriously
Following the thoughts of Caillois, it could be supposed that in a time where games have achieved economic and cultural significance, they could begin to be “taken seriously.” 4 On one hand, metaphors of the game of life are considered meaningful and telling, and on the other, the modeling power of games is considered compelling and valuable. Through the union of these two processes, the concept of games is at the same time the mirror of life/society and a paradigm to conform to.
These assumptions could be usefully compared and endorsed using Juri Lotman’s semiotics theory of cultural self-descriptions, especially his study on card games in Russian culture of the 19th century (Lotman, 1978). According to the semiotician, during the 19th century, the metaphor of life as a card game spread in Russian society. This fiction was not a simple metaphor but had a double nature: It is a cultural self-description (life is interpreted as a gambling card game, made by chance and skill, involving huge successes or catastrophic failures, where brave men can rise among others, etc.), and at the same time, it is a framework for the construction of cultural behavior (life has to be played as in a gambling card game, taking advantage of luck and not fearing risks).
Connecting Lotman’s and Caillois’s statements, on the one hand, culture is projected in certain types of games, capable of reflecting some profound societal dispositions/attitudes (such as the relationship between luck and skill, the sheer inscrutability of fate, etc.). On the other hand, certain types of games become a fundamental operative framework to discuss society in a given period and to create an implicit or explicit model of behavior based on the rules of the social game. As a consequence, the double process of imitation between games and society could explain both the birth of gamification as a cultural rhetoric of game and its contemporary diffusion as a marketing and sociocultural practice. In addition, the interaction of these two phenomena could be used to explain the further and further contamination between these two poles. Cultural redemptive rhetorics of games foster the interpretation of specific marketing or UX elements as game like (as the Linkedin progress bar or eBay rating system), while the spread of game-like dynamics and applications (as Steam and Foursquare) strengthens the interpretation of these specific elements (grinding dynamics, scarcity economy etc.) as “tipically gameful,”
At the same time, the hypothesis of long-term influences between games and societies is not sufficient per se to explain the rise of gamification. A further step could be provided through Bruno Latour’s (2008) theories on the concept of design. For the sociologist, contemporary culture has reached a point where every action or practice is believed to be designable and needs to be designed. The design is seen as the paradigmatic act of creation, going beyond the old dichotomy of form versus function, craftsmanship versus mass production, imagination versus invention, and so on.
In relation to the previous statement, it is possible that we are progressively experiencing not only the rise of “design as dasein” 5 but also that game design becomes the paradigmatic type of design for human activities, due to the cultural significance achieved by the ludic medium in recent years. The result is a process of taking games seriously, by using them as a model for designing all human activities, not only addressing the playful legacy but searching in the very game design (e.g., Salen & Zimmerman, 2004) for possible solutions to intervene in various areas of society (work, economy, health, education, etc.). 6
Mimicry in Gamification
Although we highlighted the role of imitation and analogy between games and society, we can see from our case studies (and according to Ferri, 2014; Sicart, 2015) how gamified apps are generally centered on agon and alea mechanics. Yet, within the activity of gamification, mimicry seems to belong to a different level, not in games’ dynamics and mechanics but involved in the activity itself to take part in gamified applications.
Steam is emblematic: A platform whose targets are gamers, built so as to make them believe or remember that they are gamers even when they should be called buyers. Above all, Steam uses game design elements to reduce or get rid of the barriers between these two activities, assimilating them through achievements, cards, levels, and badges, in order to make people behave and feel as if they were still gamers.
In a similar way, the various runners/workers/drivers using gamification apps do not pretend to be something else or take on a role that is different from theirs; on the contrary, they pretend to be players of a specific kind of game, although it is only an environment that mimics or resembles games. It is only by making people think and act as gamers that gamification can take effect. As for the “real” playful mimicry, users do not point to total identification nor do they deceive others; they just need to keep up enough of a pretence to be able to accept the projection of game elements in their daily activities. Users do not run/drive/work; rather, they play run/drive/work, disguised as players to get part of the benefits of playful experiences.
A typical slogan of gamification is the “we are all players” motto (Coppens, 2013). The basic idea seems to be that everyone, within his or her daily activities, can act as, or imitate, gamers enough to be the main character of the stage.
In this sense, gamification could be considered as a process designed to make users mimic players and act as players. Once again, the issue of distinguishing games from nongames, and between acting as a player and playing, relies more on a mix of individual belief and on the design of the whole experience (as in the subtle act of make believe) than in specific quantities of elements or dynamics involved.
For Caillois, the mimicking mind-set that governed societies was based on analogical reasoning and was directly linked to the capacity for playfulness in human society. As a result of his surrealist background (Cheng, 2009), Callois posited that imitation as a social drive is possible in a world permeated by analogical thinking, where the established phenomenical order of things can be put into play. His work, throughout, did not aim to be a simple act of tracing or glimpsing (more or less fictitious) similarities: It aimed to take into account, observe, and study in a diagonal way the process of life itself (Caillois, 1970/1985, p. 6, 95 among others).
The consequence of the principle of mimicry is, therefore, wider and deeper than the “simple” act of disguise, the taste of drama and entertainment, and child’s play (all of which, though, are very relevant in our culture). In a society centered on the power of analogy, the boundaries and the very separation between the spheres of life are subject to alteration, transformation, and play/playfulness, intended as the interruption of ordinary frames (Bateson, 1996; Goffman, 1974).
As a result, mimicry is not limited to mere representation but is a more complex phenomenon that crosses human borders, being part of the animal world (Caillois, 1960/1998) or even discernible in geometries traced in the mineral world (Caillois, 1970/1985). In his purest form, it could be considered the key to otherness and alterity, being the result of a “Fascination with the Other” (Caillois, 1960/1998, p. 87).
For the French philosopher, the connection of analogical thinking, mimicry and playfulness, puts the very frames of classification between the realms in doubt. To make believe, pretend, disguise, or camouflage are part of an ambiguous movement of fascination/repulsion of the other and otherness, a fabulation that continually puts into play the similarities and differences between the different realms of life.
By comparison, mimicry in gamification seems to have a completely different role. It is no longer a vehicle for orientation in a cosmos of analogies, but rather a tool to confirm and accept the assumption of our own identity, in a context where daily activities have, for a long time, lost their value. No longer a channel for otherness, a moment of communion, transformation, and acquisition of identity, mimicking gamers become instrumental to a completely different process: the confirmation and retelling of a self, previously without value.
The Arena and the Stands
In this sense, we should rather speak of an instrumental use of mimicry and of games as efficient models to give new life to systems of values and principles already present in the nongaming world (which is exactly the link between gamification and positive psychology; see Deci & Ryan, 2000; or Csikszentmihaly, 1975). All this seems to mirror some remarks of Caillois about a special kind of relationship between agon and mimicry: For nonparticipants, every agon is a spectacle. Only it is a spectacle which, to be valid, excludes simulation. Great sports events are nevertheless special occasions for mimicry, but it must be recalled that the simulation is now transferred from the participants to the audience. It is not the athletes who mimic, but the spectators. Identification with the champion in itself constitutes mimicry related to that of the reader with the hero of the novel and that of the moviegoer with the film star. (Caillois, 1961/2001, p. 22) Identification is a degraded and diluted form of mimicry, the only one that can survive in a world dominated by the combination of merit and chance. The majority fail in competition or are ineligible to compete, having no chance to enter or succeed.…Chance, like merit, selects only a favored few. The majority remain frustrated.…He may therefore choose to win indirectly, through identification with someone else, which is the only way in which all can triumph simultaneously without effort or chance of failure. (Caillois, 1961/2001, p. 120) There is, doubtless, no combination more inextricable than that of agon and alea. Merit such as each might claim is combined with the chance of an unprecedented fortune in order to seemingly assure the novice a success so exceptional as to be miraculous. Here, mimicry intervenes. Each one participates indirectly in an inordinate triumph which may happen to him, but which deep inside him he knows can befall only one in millions. In this way, everyone yields to the illusion and at the same time dispenses with the effort that would be necessary if he truly wished to try his luck and succeed (Caillois, 1961/2001, p. 122).
In Place of a Conclusion
In the previous pages, the rise of gamification and the debate about the relationship between games and societies have been discussed through a contextual explanation of Roger Caillois’s theorethical framework. Through it, it is possible to draw some preliminary remarks that could, eventually, lead to further statements for the understanding of the phenomenon of gamification: A positivist reading of Caillois made his theories appear as exclusively game related, overlooking their role in providing explanations for the relationships between the spheres of play and culture. Through a proper evaluation of his thoughts, it could be possible to shed a light in the current issues of the gamification debate. Through Caillois’s theories, gamification can be seen not merely as an unprecedented phenomenon but at the same time as a result of long-term relationships between the world of playfulness and real life. On the one hand, a consequence of the everlasting imitation of “serious activities” by games from child’s play to complex digital simulations. On the other, a result of the act of “take games seriously,” not just metaphorically, but paradigmatically taking games as a general framework to interpret, design, and shape everyday activities. Moreover, the notion of mimicry helps addressing the limits and issues encountered by definitions of gamification, which try to separate game elements, dynamics, and contexts from nongameful ones. The act of making user mimick players, tied with the imitation of game elements and dynamics, blurs further the distinction perceived between “pure” game dynamics, elements of loyalty programs, and interactive design solutions. All in all, the notion of degraded mimicry is tied with the key role achieved by agon in gamified applications. Through mild forms of identification, nudged by social pressure and users feedback (leaderboards and social networking functions), a dramatized stage is built, in which every user can observe and measure the performance of others. Suggesting (or nudging) that everyone is given the chance to be the winner in countless competitions, both small and large, occupying our daily lives.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.