Www.med.monash.edu Charles Livingstone Dept of Health Social Science School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine Power, actors, interests: –whose.

www.med.monash.edu

Charles LivingstoneDept of Health Social Science

School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine

Power, actors, interests: – whose responsibility is problem gambling?

www.med.monash.edu

2

A few favourites …

www.med.monash.edu

3

Victorian pub venue – the Vegas room …30 EGMs, net ‘gaming’ revenue 2008-09: $4.5 million

www.med.monash.edu

4

Parramatta Leagues Club (NSW):just a local club, really: total annual revenues ~ $60 million

www.med.monash.edu

5

A hypothesis about EGMs…

• What do EGMs sell? Some form of entertainment, for example:– A fantasy about winning money

– A quasi-social experience

– A moment of escape from life’s vicissitudes

• Or: – a commodified stream of indeterminacy

presented and mediated by principles of probability

www.med.monash.edu

6

On ‘responsible gambling’

• “'Responsible gambling' is a carefully structured, if elastic and goalless term, discursively transferring responsibility for industrialized (and normalized) harm production to end users. It would, perhaps, be helpful for harm minimization purposes were it to denote pursuit of the absence of harm by all means. Yet the actually existing category of 'responsible gambling' invariably ignores the EGM system's harm producing capacity.”

– Livingstone & Woolley (2007)

www.med.monash.edu

7

Discourse

• That which enables our subjectivity• Not just a way of speaking:

– what can be said

– what can not be said

– what can be conceived of and materialised

– what is unsayable, inconceivable, immaterial

• But reflexive, constantly altered, never truly stable, and always aligned with the lineaments of power

www.med.monash.edu

8

Discourse - Laclau & Mouffe

• A “discursive structure is not a merely ‘cognitive’ or ‘contemplative’ entity; it is articulatory practice which constitutes and organises social relations”

– Laclau & Mouffe (1985)

• Personally, I think it’s more helpful to think of the materialisations of discourse as systems of relations rather than structures, but who am I to question L&M?

www.med.monash.edu

9

A very simplified social dialectic …(after Bourdieu)

www.med.monash.edu

10

Power

• Is most powerfully articulated when taken for granted … as in the universe of the undiscussed

• May be thought of as orthodox or heterodox– With the heterodox constantly infecting the

orthodox, both to preserve the core of orthodoxy and to address conflict

www.med.monash.edu

11

The discourse of business as usual

• Relies on discursive elements such as: – ‘rational, sovereign consumers’– ‘Responsible gambling’

• And multiple orthodoxies, including:– ‘Only a small proportion of gamblers suffer

harm’– ‘EGMs are safe, people are the problem’– ‘Altering arrangements will reduce enjoyment of

RGs’

www.med.monash.edu

12

Actors, power

Public interest

ResearchersCharities

www.med.monash.edu

13

Upstream, downstream

• Upstream interventions prevent harm– They include legislation, regulation and active

material policies – as with smoking and road safety

– But also include measures assisting individuals (such as pre-commitment)

• Downstream measures treat the consequences of harm– Counselling, self-exclusion etc

www.med.monash.edu

14

‘Responsible gambling’discursive legerdemain!

• Emphasises the individual’s responsibility• Focuses on flawed consumers• Argues that modest education, social

marketing and associated activity will reduce harm– Despite decades of public health evidence to the

contrary

• Is opposed by the discursive figure of the ‘recreational gambler’

www.med.monash.edu

15

Legitimation

• Tax• Charitable and sporting donations• The recreational gambler• And, in Australia, the folk model

www.med.monash.edu

16

The ‘folk model’discursive cleverness par excellence

• Poker machines are simple entertainment products

• They provide amusement in social venues

• They promote community participation

• They collect money for community purposes

• They are not primarily intended as the principle business activity of the venue

• They are not dependent on people with problems – Sadly, all mythology …

www.med.monash.edu

17

System of systems

• System 1: the network of actors, articulating power and interests, relating all elements of the system to all other elements; a social imaginary institution, materialised.

• System 2: the radical imaginary of the subject; interior, imaginary, magmatic, craving connection … to the stream of indeterminacy

www.med.monash.edu

18

What the EGM industry says EGMs do …

Mr Ferrar—The reality of a gaming machine is that, when you plug it in and power it up, it starts generating millions and millions of random numbers. … When you press ‘play’ … the software reaches into this torrent of random numbers, grabs a few and applies those … When we talk about random number generation, we are talking about instantaneous generation of a number by reaching into a gigantic pool … of random numbers.

(Ferrar, evidence to Senate C’tee, 12 Sep 2008)

www.med.monash.edu

19

To remind:

… a commodified stream of indeterminacy presented and mediated by principles of probability …

Or, as Nietzsche out it:We have left the land and have embarked. We have burned our bridges behind us – indeed we have gone farther and destroyed the land behind us. Now, little ship, look out! Beside you is the ocean … hours will come when you realize that it is infinite and that there is nothing more awesome than infinity ...

The Gay Science

www.med.monash.edu

20

So … the EGM gambler as neo-Nietzschean …

• It’s something like reaching into the abyss, a simulacrum of the magma of signification – immersion in possibility, endless connection

• Not a place where humans can easily live … so we paper it over (as Castoriadis says), and invent God to determine it for us …

– (until rational modernity knocked God off, at any rate)

• But the radical imaginary longs for a connection to this well of meaning – to an unmediated ‘reality’, as it were

– Embarked on a sea of awesome infinity

www.med.monash.edu

21

So, who’s responsible?

• Everyone … in interestingly different ways• If the ratiocinating pokie user was a ‘rational’

sovereign consumer, they might be to blame …

– But how much power does the user deploy?• If we allocate responsibility based on power:

– Industry, government, researchers, charities, regulators, and the public at large are all more culpable than users

– And EGMs/networks are very powerful, being the interface, the pathway into a magmatic torrent

www.med.monash.edu

22

What is to be done?

• A sustainable industry is probably achievable

• BUT it needs significant alteration of relations of power,

• AND recognition of the futility of downstream responses

• AND downloaded responsibility

www.med.monash.edu

23

A few people to thank …who’s the odd one out?

www.med.monash.edu

24

Indeterminacy, at a venue near you …(if you live in suburban Australia)

[email protected]