Our life chances are shaped by the positions we occupy, the resources we control, the ability we have, the effort we exert, luck, and any number of other possible factors. Games can help us to better see how such factors can shape outcomes, especially when, as in the case of some games, the deck seems stacked in favor of some and at the expense of others.
SOCiable – A Game of Life Chances is a card game inspired by the traditional Chinese card game Zheng Shangyou (争上游), meaning “struggling upstream.” Many variations of this game exist, including Dai Hin Min (大貧民) in Japan, Tiên Lên in Vietnam, and President in the United States. Unlike many games popular in the United States, starting positions in these games are hierarchical. Players do not begin with equal resources, power, or opportunities to win. SOCiable is a streamlined version of those games designed to speed up game play in order to fit more hands and games into a shorter period of time (such as a class period).
I’ve been experimenting with using SOCiable in class and thought I’d pass it along. I’ve found it to be helpful when talking about the relationships between structure, individual ability/effort, and luck. I’m hoping that others will give it a try and find it useful, too. I’d love to hear what worked and what didn’t, how students responded, what lessons might have been learned, etc. I would also welcome suggestions for changes or descriptions of how you adapted it to suit your purposes.
I am including both a PDF with full instructions (SOCiable – A Game of Life Chances – version 1.0) and the somewhat briefer PowerPoint file I used to introduce the game in class (SOCiable – A Game of Life Chances (PowerPoint) – version 1.0) . I hope you find them useful.
I talk about these kinds of games in the opening vignette for SOC Chapter 5 as a means of introducing the significance of structures, so it could be used in conjunction with that chapter, but I’ve also used it in my Social Problems course and plan to give it a try in my stratification course this coming semester.
August 30, 2012 at 9:40 am
Jon,
Wow, great adaptation of an old game that has apparently seen a variety of manifestations. My friends and I used to play a version in high school back in the early 90s. We called it “Feudal Lords”. Instead of drawing cards in the beginning to establish the hierarchy, we first played a round where everybody was dealt a hand using all of the cards (not just 8-Ace) with no trading. After the first round the hierarchy was established and the unequal trading began, with the middle rank not trading at all and just keeping what was dealt. I think the game could illustrate nicely that social mobility is possible with skill and luck, but that the deck is stacked in favor of those at the top. In your version, by only using 8 – Ace and trading two cards, this kind of built in inequality more accurately reflects reality than trading only two cards if using the whole deck. However, I’m thinking that the trading inequality still isn’t severe enough, and should be upped so that the “Boss” and “Temp” trade 3 or 4 cards, the “Veep” and “Clerk” 1 or 2 cards and the “Manager” one random card or none. Also, instead of luck determining the initial ranking, it could be based on some combination of gender, race and SES. Or, it could be based on some random characteristic that is less intrusive and off-putting, such as age. Just some thoughts, but in general, I think this is a cool idea and would be a fun activity in class.
Stephan