One of the things I love about the philosophy department I am studying is that there are plenty of sociology and psychology courses in its curriculum. I've been following these lectures carefully as I wonder why people behave one way or another. It's hard to come across anything new under the sun in this age of communication. However, in my studies, I encountered theories that I was pleasantly surprised by, saying, 'How have I not heard of this before?'. For example, Pierre Bourdieu's works tried to explain our lives within the framework of the game metaphor.
Life can literally be just a game. The games we play as children to prepare for life may continue for a lifetime. Do you think it's a coincidence that legendary Turkish author Oğuz Atay named his two important books Dangerous Games and Living With Games? Considering that the game theme occupies a central place in his masterwork novel "Tutunamayanlar," we see that Oğuz Atay has grasped the importance of the game.
Bourdieu placed a special emphasis on the concept of the field while explaining the game metaphor to his readers. The field is where the game is played. Its borders are not well-drawn, and it tends to expand. Players inside the field also try to expand their individual fields. The world of literature, the world of medicine, or digital media such as Steemit can be given examples of fields.
Where there is a game, of course, there will be rules. Bourdieu calls these rules Doxa. The peculiarity of Doxa is that players accept them without question. Participation in the game is voluntary, and individuals participating in the game experience the unique feeling of being in the game and gaining financial benefits. Bourdieu used the word 'illusio' to conceptualize the feeling of being in the game.
After a while, individuals participating in the game adapt to the whole of the common predispositions of the field through the relationships they establish and the activities they perform. Individuals not only adapt to the culture of the field but also contribute to its shaping. This culture, called habitus, can even be radically changed by charismatic actors in the field.
A field is a place where players pursue their interests, and those who participate in the game want to get some benefits. Each player has trump cards that they can use to get ahead of the ongoing competition on the field. Bourdieu handles these trump cards, which we can also name as capital, under four headings: money, relations, culture, and symbolic capital. Money refers to assets owned by a person. Relationships can be explained as the bonds that a person establishes with other actors, especially the leading actors of the field. Culture indicates the qualities such as manners and knowledge that a person has. On the other hand, symbolic capital is obtained through indicators such as the diploma of a well-known school and antiques.
The relative importance of capital types differs from area to area. In this context, Bourdieu greatly expanded Marx's concept of capital and made it valid for today.
The reason why Bourdieu's sociology impressed me so much is that it suits the spirit of the 21st century. He sees society as a field made up of a combination of fields rather than a monolithic whole. The number of areas where people operate in communities and the number of games played in these areas is constantly increasing.
I think the main thing is to be able to enjoy the game we play, like children. Maybe this way we can make the game of life more enjoyable.
Thanks for reading.
Image Sources: https://unsplash.com/photos/_gnlBfxCL4A
That is an interesting point of view... We can look at life as a game, but we can also look at it as a theater... In the first view (as a game) we are more "active", and in the second one, we are more just like an observer of the big stage...
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
I have picked this post on behalf of the @OurPick project and it will be highlighted in the next post!
In video games, we are active too, unlike theatre and TV. But life and video games are energy-consuming :)