Losing

Crisis On Infinite Games

“A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.”

James Carse’s Finite and Infinite Games is both highly recommended and also highly annoying. Simon Sinek really likes it but that shouldn’t put you off.

In his 1986 book, Carse does not make arguments or tell stories. Instead he issues edicts.

And some of those edicts have me going:

And some of them have me going:

Carse’s key distinction is between (wait for it) Finite and Infinite Games. Finite games have a beginning, an end, a goal, a winner and loser(s). Whereas the goal of a finite game is something other than the game itself, the goal of an infinite game is to continue playing. Therefore the participants of an infinite game are collectively winning if the game continues.

“Finite games can be played within an infinite game, but an infinite game cannot be played within a finite game. Infinite players regard their wins and losses in whatever finite games they playas but moments in continuing play.”

As several people have noted, Carse’s ideas apply to politics. Modern democracy is fundamentally an infinite game. It is predicated on the notion that no election is ever definitive. It is predicated on the willingness of the participants to potentially lose and to live with that loss. While we may have noble dreams a system that represents all voices with a nation (or at least the ones that we agree with), the core of democracy is that we can change our governments without resorting to physical violence. We don’t need a coup if enough of us think the current lot are doing a bad job and we also think someone else might to a better job. Chinese officials will often point to the regular turnover of Western leaders as a weakness of the system whereas, in fact, it can be a strength. The Chinese are stuck with Xi Jinping for the foreseeable future.

“The rules are always designed to deal with specific threats to the continuation of play. Infinite players use the rules to regulate the way they will take the boundaries or limits being forced against their play into the game itself.”

Democracy breaks down when people no longer want play an infinite game. Apocalyptic claims that if “We don’t win this election then our way of life is over” position democracy as a finite game and open the game to all kinds of attempts at rule breaking to win. Such claims are often rooted in the fracturing of the electorate and the breakdown of shared identities between social groups. Democracies must first exist as a “we” before a “them and us”.

Yesterday was the election day for local councils in New South Wales. Australians have, by accident or design, succeeded in turning elections into civic festivals. Elections are always held on weekends. Compulsory voting means big turnouts (and also reduces efforts at voter suppression). You go to your polling station. I got there at opening time and queued for about 10 minutes. Many polling stations are schools and the PTA will have a BBQ up so you pay a couple of bucks and get a “democracy sausage” (or halloumi burger). While seeing the democracy sausage getting made is often unpleasant, the end result is surprisingly tasty given in the inputs.

Long may the infinite game be played.

“Finite players play within boundaries; infinite players play with boundaries”