Introduction
This essay explores the intersection of games and societal critique through a philosophical lens, examining how gameplay reflects human nature, social structures, and cultural norms. By playing and analysing three distinct games—Canada Monopoly, Uno, and Trial By Trolley—this discussion draws connections between the rules, themes, and player interactions within these games and broader philosophical concepts from the course. Specifically, the essay engages with Thomas More’s concept of Utopia, distributive justice as articulated by Rawls and Nozick, and gender norms through feminist perspectives. The purpose is to uncover what these games reveal about societal values, such as wealth distribution, ideal societies, and power dynamics, while reflecting on player behaviour and interactions. Through this analysis, the essay argues that games serve as microcosms of society, offering insights into human nature and cultural constructs, albeit with limitations in fully capturing real-world complexities.
Gameplay as a Mirror of Human Nature
Games often reveal facets of human nature, both in how players interact with one another and in their individual responses to rules and challenges. In playing Canada Monopoly, a variation of the classic property-trading game, I observed a clear display of competitive instincts among players (myself and two university peers). The game’s emphasis on acquiring property and accumulating wealth mirrored Hobbesian realism, where self-interest and competition drive human behaviour (Hobbes, 1651). Players, including myself, prioritised personal gain over cooperation, often negotiating aggressively to secure properties. This suggests a natural inclination towards self-preservation, a theme central to Hobbes’ view of the state of nature as a struggle for power.
Conversely, Uno, a fast-paced card game played with the same group, highlighted moments of cooperation alongside competition. While the objective is to be the first to discard all cards, players occasionally formed temporary alliances, such as targeting a leading player with penalty cards. This duality reflects a tension between individual ambition and collective strategy, resonating with Kant’s liberal ideal of mutual respect and cooperation as a path to peace (Kant, 1795). However, such alliances were fleeting, underscoring the fragility of cooperation when personal victory is at stake. These observations indicate that games can reveal both the competitive and cooperative dimensions of human nature, though arguably the former often dominates in structured settings.
Rules Construction and Societal Analogies
The rules of games serve as analogous constructs to government and laws, often revealing their arbitrariness and impact on fairness. Canada Monopoly’s rules, which centre on wealth accumulation through property ownership and rent, directly critique societal wealth distribution. The game inherently disadvantages players who start with less luck (e.g., poor dice rolls or property draws), paralleling real-world economic inequality. This aligns with Rawls’ theory of distributive justice, which advocates for a system that benefits the least advantaged through mechanisms like the veil of ignorance (Rawls, 1971). In my gameplay experience, late-game disparities became stark, as one player amassed wealth while others struggled with bankruptcy—a dynamic that questions whether society’s ‘rules’ are just or merely arbitrary constructs favouring the fortunate.
Trial By Trolley, a moral dilemma game played with a different group of friends, further exposes the arbitrariness of rules through its subjective decision-making framework. Players must decide who to save or sacrifice in absurd hypothetical scenarios, with outcomes determined by group debate. The lack of objective criteria for decisions mirrors the often-arbitrary nature of societal norms and laws, where power dynamics or persuasive rhetoric can shape ‘justice’. This game also ties into Nozick’s libertarian perspective, which prioritises individual liberty over enforced equality (Nozick, 1974). Players’ choices often reflected personal biases rather than collective good, suggesting that societal rules, like game rules, may lack universal fairness and instead cater to individual or majority interests.
Gender Norms and Power Dynamics in Gameplay
Games also provide a lens to examine gender norms and power dynamics, revealing how societal expectations shape behaviour. In Uno, I noted subtle differences in how male and female players approached competition (group comprised of two males and two females). Male players were more likely to gloat over victories or use aggressive tactics, such as stacking penalty cards, while female players tended to adopt a more conciliatory tone during disputes over rules. This observation aligns with feminist critiques of the ‘Man Box’, which describes societal pressures on men to exhibit dominance and suppress vulnerability (Kimmel, 2013). Although these behaviours were not universal, they suggest that gendered norms can subtly influence gameplay interactions, reflecting broader cultural expectations.
In Trial By Trolley, gender dynamics were less overt but still present. Female players in my group occasionally deferred to male players during debates, possibly due to socialised norms around assertiveness. This resonates with McIntosh’s concept of privilege, where unearned advantages (in this case, gendered confidence) shape interactions (McIntosh, 1988). While the game’s structure does not explicitly encode gender norms, the way players engaged with it revealed underlying societal patterns, highlighting how games can both mirror and perpetuate cultural biases.
Games as Reflections of Ideal Societies and Social Critique
The themes and mechanics of games often comment on societal ideals, such as the vision of an ideal society or critiques of wealth distribution. Canada Monopoly, with its focus on capitalistic success, contrasts sharply with Thomas More’s Utopia, which envisions a society free from private property and greed (More, 1516). The game’s win condition—bankrupting others—promotes an individualistic ideal far removed from utopian equality. During gameplay, players expressed frustration at the growing wealth gap, mirroring real-world critiques of capitalism. Indeed, the game seems to critique rather than celebrate such a system, exposing its flaws through exaggerated mechanics.
Trial By Trolley, meanwhile, raises questions about moral priorities in society. By forcing players to make impossible ethical choices, it indirectly critiques societal systems that fail to protect the vulnerable, aligning with the Seventh Generation Principle of environmental justice, which urges consideration of long-term consequences (Clarkson et al., 1992). In gameplay discussions, players often prioritised immediate outcomes over broader implications, reflecting society’s frequent shortsightedness. Uno, while less thematic, still critiques societal dynamics through its simplicity and accessibility, suggesting an ideal of fairness that is often absent in more complex systems. Together, these games highlight tensions between societal ideals and realities, offering a playful yet poignant critique.
Conclusion
In summary, playing Canada Monopoly, Uno, and Trial By Trolley reveals how games serve as microcosms of society, reflecting human nature, rules as analogous to laws, gender norms, and societal ideals. Through the lens of Hobbesian competition and Kantian cooperation, gameplay exposes both individual and collective tendencies in human behaviour. The arbitrariness of rules, critiqued through Rawls’ and Nozick’s theories of justice, mirrors societal inequalities and power dynamics, while feminist perspectives and McIntosh’s privilege framework illuminate gendered interactions. Finally, the thematic content of games contrasts with More’s utopian vision, critiquing wealth distribution and moral priorities in society. These findings suggest that games are not merely entertainment but powerful tools for social critique, though their simplified structures limit their ability to capture real-world complexity. Further exploration could consider how diverse cultural contexts shape gameplay, enhancing our understanding of global societal norms.
References
- Clarkson, L., Morrissette, V., and Regallet, G. (1992) Our Responsibility to the Seventh Generation: Indigenous Peoples and Sustainable Development. International Institute for Sustainable Development.
- Hobbes, T. (1651) Leviathan. Andrew Crooke.
- Kant, I. (1795) Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. F. Nicolovius.
- Kimmel, M. (2013) The Gendered Society. Oxford University Press.
- McIntosh, P. (1988) White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondences through Work in Women’s Studies. Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.
- More, T. (1516) Utopia. Froben.
- Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
- Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
