![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
In this paper, I engage the debate on Suits’ theory of games by providing a Kantian view of Utopia. I argue that although the Kantian aspects of Suits’ approach are often overlooked in comparison to its Socratic-Platonic aspects, Kant’s ideas play a fundamental role in Suits’ proposal. In particular, Kant’s concept of ‘regulative idea’ is the basis of Suits’ Utopia. I regard Utopia as Suits’ regulative idea on game playing. In doing so, I take Utopia to play a double role in Suits’ theory of games. First, it highlights the primary condition of possibility of game-playing, namely, the lusory attitude. Second, it provides a normative criterion that serves as a critical principle to evaluate instances of game playing and as a counterfactual assumption that makes game playing possible. I provide further support for my Kantian interpretation of Suits’ Utopia by bringing to light the anthropological assumptions upon which Utopia is built. In doing so, I argue that both Suits’ theory of games, in general, and his Utopia, in particular, lay out the conditions of possibility of game playing, not an analysis on the life most worth living.
Notes
1. ‘The Idea of a constitution in harmony with the natural right of man, one namely in which the citizen obedient to the law, besides being united, ought also to be legislative, lies at the basis of all political forms; and the body politic which, conceived in conformity to it by virtue of pure concepts of reason, signifies a Platonic Ideal (republicans noumenon), is not an empty chimera, but rather the eternal norm for all civil organization in general, and averts all war. A civil society organized conformably to this ideal is the representation of it in agreement with the laws of freedom by means of an example in our experience (republica phenomenon)’ (Kant Citation1996, 156) (My emphasis).
2. Instrumental reasoning has a place in games, but only within the limits drawn by the rules that limit the use of the most efficient means. For example, the main goal in soccer is to get the ball pass the scoreline using any part of the body other than the arms. Participants can employ instrumental reason to plan plays, defend their scoreline, improve their training methods and equipment, and so on. This would increase their chances to win by finding the most efficient means allowed by the rules. However, they cannot adopt the tactics of carrying the ball with their hands, as in rugby, or of slaughtering any opposing teams that appear on the field (Suits Citation1984, 22). In these two last cases, the soccer ‘players’ would not be playing soccer but doing something else, namely: rugby and murder.
3. In line with this, modern utopias, such as Francis Bacon’s Atlantis (Citation1919), often portray ideal worlds where science provides human beings a way to escape from the realm of necessity.
4. Besides the willingness to overcome artificially created obstacles, there are other reasons for using less efficient means to achieve a goal. Ethical or prudential reasons, for example. Faking one’s resume might be the most efficient manner to get a desired job, but it is unethical.
5. Some commentators criticize Suits’ account of games for relying too much on rules and not complementing them with additional normative elements. D’Agostino, who is one such critics, for example, calls Suits’ approach ‘formalism’ and accuses formalists of being Platonic, understanding Platonism in a pejorative way as an ideal view of reality that is too detached reality. However, as Morgan points out, the inclusion of the lusory attitude takes Suits’ approach beyond pure formalism and attaches to it a moral dimension that has generally been overlooked (Morgan Citation2015).
6. In this sense, it could be argued that, in claiming that the life most worth living consists in game playing, Suits is making a post-modern claim (Bäck Citation2008). From this perspective, the prevalence of instrumental reason must be criticized and rejected in search for a freer and ludic world, where human beings get to realize their inner lusory attitude towards life. In this case, Suits should be regarded as a social theorist. However, my contention is that he is not. Becoming a social thinker does not seem to be his primary intention. Suits is primarily a theorist of games, and The Grasshopper is essentially a book on game playing. As he states: the book is largely devoted to formulating a theory of games […] That theory is not intended to be in any direct way a contribution to the field of investigation known officially as Game Theory, although it is possible that some game theorists may find it of more than marginal interest. Nor is the book essentially a contribution to sociology or social psychology (Suits Citation2005, ix).