Hmm this seems a bit at odds with the perspectives in for eg. Huizenga or Geertz Deep Play (the part about demands of politics/kinship/faith being excluded... IME they strongly define the context of play folkways)
Conversation
Replying to
yeah this is something different - what makes it modern in his view is the decoupling from the other spheres
2
1
Replying to
So basically organized league style sports and games? The kind that peaked with Putnam's bowling-alone culture?
2
1
Replying to
Putnam claimed it peaked in the 1950s iirc but I don't see why they can't exist in postmodernity (I'm on a sports league and I'm me lol)
1
1
Replying to
I'm trying to figure out how modern domestic-cozy subculture around indie board game nights or small groups of video-gamers is different from the bowling league stuff. The latter had a much more... tocquevillean I suppose... org culture. The former seems more intimate somehow
2
3
Replying to
tocquevillean exactly - the intimate kind is demanding in a different way
1
2
Replying to
I think I make a distinction between group memberships which grant you things like membership cards and numbers (Gesellschaft orgs) and ones where your membership quality is a function of who networked you in, and how (Gemeinschaft orgs). Putnam was about the former in decline.
2
3
Replying to
oh my gosh MacFarlane makes exactly that distinction with the same German words
1
1
Replying to
Well, Tonnies *is* sort of like the Newton of sociology. You can't avoid his concepts in any analysis of such basic phenomena as gaming
1
2
Replying to
what I want from games or clubs or whatever is the experience of everyone's natural healthy status drives being directed toward the group's ends - especially making better stories
1
1
8
Replying to
I suspect that's a lifecycle phase (maybe 2nd quarter?) for orgs that start with the right initial conditions, and never even on the table with unhealthy ones.

