The Gamification of Society. Группа авторов
them to do something by giving the feeling that they are playing in the very controlled frame of a game, or rather a device that takes up aspects of the game itself.
1.5. Extension of the notion of gamification
What makes it difficult to think about this notion of gamification is that, as Seaborn and Fels (2015) point out, its meaning is not limited, even in academic articles, to the meaning given by Deterding et al. (2011):
Gamification has been used to describe two additional concepts: (1) the creation or use of a game for any non-entertainment context and/or goal, and (2) the transformation of an existing system into a game […] In education, the term “gamification” has been used to refer to digital-based learning (DGBL) and serious games generally. (Seaborn and Fels 2015, pp. 17–18)
The success of the term means that it refers to various realities: beyond the devices themselves, some evoke situations that are meant to be gamified or rather playified, ludified. But the success of the term gamification can lead to erasing these differences. The creation of a serious game becomes gamification and soon we will talk about the gamified life of children to mean that they play! It seems to me that the use of the term is free of any rigor and that is why it can be an object of research – on the condition that its use is analyzed – in no way a concept; or if it is a notion, only the approach of Deterding et al. (2011) allows us to establish a minimum consensus for this.
Thus, in this delirium on the words game and play, freed from any relation to a reflection on what it is, we can find the idea of gamifying a game2. I will stop here to say that at this level it is no longer possible to intervene; perhaps it is a fake language in the era of fake news (which would be the equivalent of gamification, the gamification of information and politics).
It seems to me that the complexity of the situation points to the underlying idea that it is not play and yet it is play. A parallel can be drawn with the use of the term ludique in French, meaning playful (Brougère 2015). Indeed, for a long time, the term ludique remained the academic term it was when it was first coined, with the aim of compensating for the absence of an adjective linked to jeu. Its meaning was “relative to play”, i.e. play in adjectival form. It was by passing gradually into ordinary language that its meaning evolved in a curious way to mean two contradictory things. The term often evokes a situation that would be close to play without actually meaning the term itself. C’est ludique (it is playful) being understood as not quite playful, but sounding like it, c’est un exercice ludique (it is a playful exercise). One would like to say it is gamified. This use of the term playful is very close to gamification: making an activity playful without it becoming a game. But what makes the use of the term today more complex is that, when faced with serious or educational games, the adjective ludique is used to reinforce the dimension of “properly playful” as opposed to games that are not quite playful; we can find this surprising expression of jeu ludique (e.g. in De Grandmont 1999), jeu jeu (a play game) could be said to be playful, as if a game could not be playful. But beyond the criticism that can be made of it, does not this reflect such a wide use of play, playfulness (and gamification) that we no longer know what these terms mean? Is it a question of transforming into a game, of resembling the game, of being fun (or amusing). A plurality of meanings appears under a notion that therefore tells us nothing. As playful which means, depending on the context, to be really a game or not to be a game at all, the term gamification today refers to producing games in fields other than pure entertainment or producing devices that borrow elements from the game without really being games. It is a term that should be used with care without assuming a priori that under the supposedly gamified object there is the game.
1.6. Language or reality
Is it a gamification of reality or language? They say it is a game, but is it enough to make games? Is the application of the idea of a game enough to define society or a company as playful, as gamified, all the more so since some people refer to gamification as the idea of a gamified society, of an omnipresence of play (or of what looks like it)?
In the 1980s, a rather similar feeling appeared in some authors’ work: the playful metaphor (La métaphore ludique) for Henriot (1989) and the playful society (La société ludique) for Cotta (1983) whose book is sub-titled The Life Invaded by Play (La vie envahie par le jeu). But using the game to speak about society, or to say that society would be playful in depth, is different. Cotta (1993) showed the growing economic importance of play, game and gambling, even if it means classifying heterogeneous activities under the play banner. There is always a tension between considering play to be ubiquitous (which would not be legitimate) and considering activities to become game or play (using a rather loose and vague notions of game and play).
This very cowardly vision of a gamification of society is the subject of a criticism that poses two problems: a notion that is not very explicit (gamification) and an absence of proof that is all the more difficult because we do not know whether we are talking about game, play, playful in a cowardly sense or something even vaguer. The more diluted the use of the notion of play becomes, the easier it is to find it everywhere. Refering to Henriot (1989), to say that everything is play is to say that nothing is play, because the notion is no longer useful. Panludism is the destruction of play. Nothing is more difficult than thinking of play as a frame for experience, without reifying the frame.
Therefore, let us not get the target wrong: let us not criticize the fact that we have made the world playful – it is not true – but let us criticize the fact that we make it seem playful, that we may say that black is white.
It is very difficult to prove under these conditions that the world would be more playful than it was. We can certainly note the importance of certain leisure activities linked to play (video games), but it is precisely this that has led to an increase or a new success of the playful metaphor, digital interaction being quickly baptized “game” or “play” because it resembles a game, whereas reality is the opposite: the game uses elements of the world, the possibilities of relationship with the digital machine to achieve its objectives. Is it a more playful world or a different kind of playful world, a world that resorts to trickery by putting play everywhere? But is it still play?
Is there really a “gameful world”? Do not we use the terms “game” and “playful” extensively (as the equivalent of fun or because of the presence of certain second characteristics of games)? In the absence of a real extension of the playful experience, it is the extension of the term(s) relating to game and play.
More than the development of the game, would not we be faced with the development of a rhetoric of the game, of the playful world? Deterding (2015) classifies these rhetorics, including those that are critical. Far from being a reality, the idea of the gamification of society, of the production of a playful world, would be pure discourse far from any testing, which is impossible because of the ambiguity of the notion – an ambiguity that Sutton-Smith (1997), from whom Deterding borrows the notion of rhetoric, had highlighted (see on this question Brougère 2005; Savignac 2017a). What characterizes these rhetorics, like Sutton-Smith’s, is that far from relying on a precise analysis of the phenomenon, it isolates a type of play or an aspect of it and then considers it to be omnipresent and significant of the development (positive or negative depending on the rhetoric) of our society. In the 18th Century, the importance of play and gambling, but also the development of calculus of chance (probabilities in our vocabulary), which emerged during the previous century from the analysis of games of chance and was applied to insurance (particularly maritime) or vaccination (or rather variolization), gave the feeling of a society where play was omnipresent. This feeling seemed to combine the development of new forms of play (nowadays video games), of which it is difficult to say whether they extended play or replaced other forms of it (and leisure), and the interpretation of reality from the idea of play (to take up Henriot’s analyzes of the playful metaphor). By retaining only one aspect of play, we end up seeing it everywhere and then developing a discourse of exaltation or criticism based on this feeling.