What is The Grasshopper?
Written by Bernard Herbert Suits, published by University of Toronto Press in 1978, The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia is a 178 page treatise on a philosophical definition of games written in the form of Socratic dialog/Hegelian dialectic. Little is know (by me, after a google search) about Dr. Suits other than that he was a philosopher and I know very little about the context of the book’s original writing (other than that which is discussed in the book). But the text itself has, in the near 40 years that passed, become an academic classic among game theorists – noted for its charming format and cited for its rigor and sophistication. The two most notable and seminal concepts from the book are 1) its definition of Games and 2) its coining of the Lusory Attitude.
Why is it called Grasshopper?
The eponymous Grasshopper is the character from Aesop’s fables, specifically the story where the ant gathers food all summer while the grasshopper plays and when winter comes the ant eats and the grasshopper dies. In the book, Grasshopper is a philosopher in the Helenistic tradition – he is well aware of the dangers of the coming winter but decides that playing is the philosophically sound choice, though it leads him knowingly to his death. Grasshopper acts as Socrates to two pupils – Prudence and Skepticus. Explaining through Socratic dialog why he chose play and death. In the first part of the post I will summarize the chapters of the book, in the second part I will recontextualize the points made in the book in the light of more recent theoretical game studies.
Chapter 1: Death of the Grasshopper
It is the end of summer and Grasshopper meets for the last time with his pupils. The pupils offer to provide food and shelter for him over for the winter but Grasshopper maintains that he must live according to his philosophy – it is the nature of Grasshopper to be improvident in the summer. He offers that if there were no winters then he would be vindicated. His pupils do not understand this. As Grasshopper dies, he describes a recurring dream. In this dream everyone in the world plays elaborate games which mirror real professions. The politician is playing at being a politician, the carpenter playing at being carpenter. But when Grasshopper tells these players the truth, the player ceases to be. With this story, Grasshopper dies.
Chapter 2: Disciples
The pupils (Skepticus and Prudence) discuss the death of Grasshopper and try to interpret his dream. Skepticus offers that his past conversation with Grasshopper can illuminate the riddle. The next 11 chapters are a flashback of conversations between Grasshopper and Skepticus on the definition of Games.
Chapter 3: Construction of a Definition
This chapter is perhaps the most important in the book because it contains its two most cited concepts – the definition of Games and the definition of Lusory Attitude.
In this Chapter, Grasshopper explains his definition of Games in a series of dialectic. First he offers to define games as an inefficient way to accomplish an end e.g. golf is putting a ball in a hole using a club rather than more efficient methods (like your hands). Grasshopper then raises an objection to his first definition, saying that if the end is defined as “putting the ball in the hole using a golf club” then golf would cease being a “game” since it is no longer an inefficient way to achieve that end. Grasshopper goes through several cycles of advancing new hypotheses and defeating them with counter-examples until he arrives at a final definition: Games are played by following rules which permit a particular a kind of activity and players accepted the rules in order to engage in that activity or as he puts it “to play a game is to engage in activity directed towards bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by rules, where the rules prohibit more efficient in favour of less efficient means, and where such rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity” (pg 34). Grasshopper notes that this is quite confusing so he offers componential definitions.
Prelusory Goal: the state of game where the player wins e.g. golf ball in the hole. This is called prelusory because the goal exists outside the game and must exist for the game to exist.
Lusory Goal: to win the game. Called lusory because this is the goal of the player and only appears after the game has started.
Lusory Means: the ways of achieving the goal that are permitted by the rules. e.g. hitting the golf ball with the golf club.
Constitutive Rules: “the proscription of certain means useful in achieving the prelusory goal”. e.g. don’t touch the golf ball with your hands.
Lusory Attitude: this is the most commonly cited definition from this book. This is the attitude of the player, that is to say of accepting the rules of the game in order to engage in the activity permitted by the game. This is contrasted with an attitude of accepting the rules for the sake of some benefit or for bureaucratic reasons.
Grasshopper then restates his definition as follows (brackets his):
“To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs [prelusory goal], using only means permitted by rules [lusory means], where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means [constitutive rules], and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity [lusory attitude]”
To break down the definition, Games are configured by 1) having with a specific goal to achieve 2) having a desired way of achieving said goal which constitutes “playing” the game and 3) creating rules which prohibit other more efficient means as a way of formalizing the lusory means and finally 4) “playing” the game by following the rules for the strict purpose of the fun of achieving the goal in the desired way. It is the goal of the player to engage in the activity made possible by following the rules in pursuit of this goal.
To illuminate this definition, we can contrast this against a non-game task which is configured by 1) having a specific goal to achieve e.g. putting a ball into a hole 2) finding out anything that makes achieving the goal difficult e.g. there’s a landmine between the ball and the hole 3) identify the most efficient non-prohibited means e.g. picking up the ball, walking around the landmine, and putting the ball hole and 4) working to achieve the goal through the previously identified most efficient means.
Note that in this case, the game case the means define the rules and in the non-game case the rules define the means.
Chapter 4 Triflers, cheats, and spoilsports
Skepticus raises the technical objection that for some games the prelusory goal cannot come first. Games like Chess have end goals that are defined in terms of the rules of the game so the rules must exist before the goal can be identified (which defies the prelusory nature of the goal). Grasshopper replies that there is an institution of Chess which describes the capabilities of the pieces and the end-state of chess. The goal of checkmate is therefore describable without the game taking place which makes the goal prelusory.
This objection and its reply may seem very technical and inconsequential but it gets to the very point of the separation of rules and goals. To illustrate this separation, Grasshopper identifies 3 types of non-players.
Trifler: moves the chess pieces according to the rules is mainly aiming to promote as many pawns as possible (for example) rather than to checkmate. He follows the rules but not the goal. He is merely messing around in the context of the game.
Cheat: breaks the rules of the game (maybe by moving pieces when the other player isn’t looking) to achieve checkmate. He follows the goal but not the rules. He wants to achieve the prelusory goal by any means necessary and is only pretending to play.
Spoilsport: doesn’t care about either the rules or the goal. He’s just moving pieces however he wishes to bid his time or annoy the other player. He is interacting with game pieces without being in the game.
The line in common for all 3 player types is that they all fail to engage in the activity isolated by following the rules in pursuit of the goal. And in so doing, failing to play the game.
Chapter 5 – taking the long way home
Skepticus claims that “taking the long way home” or “taking the scenic route” would be considered a game in this case because it is an inefficient way to get home. Grasshopper says that going the long way isn’t inefficient if you have infinite time (all paths would be equally efficient in that case). He concludes that “taking the long way home” would be a game if it is described as “getting home via the non-direct route before the sunset.”
Chapter 6 – Ivan and Abdul
Skepticus raises the possibility of games without any rules. He describes 2 generals (Ivan and Abdul) who play games (say chess) against each other but (as a reflection of their behavior in war) eschew rules to achieve the any advantage possible. Thereby they were able to invent new “games” where they competed with each other in this open-ended manner to achieve the goal. Chess would begin with illegal moves, move onto strong arming, and end in a hand-to-hand fight. The players finally decide they must kill the other to achieve final victory.
Grasshopper accepts that the scenario described is a game but does not accept that it is without rules. Because Ivan could simply decide, the moment that he realized he wanted to achieve victory over Abdul, to kill him. That is to say after Ivan has the idea to play a game with Abdul, he should just kill Abdul immediately, before even discussing the game since that is the most efficient way to achieve his victory. Grasshopper then offers that the “start time” for the generals’ game is a rule.
Chapter 7 – Games and Paradox
This chapter was originally a paper by Suits under the same name. The paper was a reply to an earlier publication Games and Aims by famed political theorist Aurel Kolnai. Kolnai argues that competitive games are paradoxical because the players have conflicting goals to 1) play the game with the other player and 2) to overcome the other player thus ending the game. The paradox lies in the fact that the players are both cooperative and antagonistic.
Grasshopper/Suits argues that to players have 2 goals – to play and to win. Both players want to play, that is to say engage in the activity permitted by the rules, but both players want different outcomes. Playing is cooperative, winning is antagonistic. Suits offers that this is not a true paradox because the player can be earnestly trying to achieve the win while engaging in the activity permitted by the rules. Thereby cooperating in the activity but antagonistic in how they want the activity to end.
This becomes problematic, Suits notes, when a superior player actively avoids the goal (winning too easily) in order to prolong the play. These would indeed be self-contradictory aims. Suits claims that these situations are caused by defective, unbalanced games.
Chapter 8 – Mountain Climbing
Skepticus claims that Mountain Climbing is a game with no rules. Grasshopper counters that if there existed a way to teleport or airlift the climber to the summit, the climber would decline. This is because the climber chose his goal for the activity it would allow him to engage in by way of the natural rules that the mountain imposed. If those natural rules were removed or trivialized, the goal of being at the summit would be worthless to the climber. Thereby, the natural rules imposed by the mountain are an essential part of the game of mountain climbing.
Chapter 9 – Reverse English
Skepticus offers an alternative definition of games and Chapter 9 through 12 are all devoted to this definition which he calls “reverse English”. Skepticus offers that children’s games like Cowboys & Indians or House do not have clear goals but have instead clear roles that children play. He claims there are role-governed games and goal-governed games. Skepticus then offers a definition of games which encompasses both types.
Where as a true imposter plays a role in order to be seen as that person (say a Cop), the player impersonates a person (say a Cop) in order to have the satisfaction of playing the role. Similarly, a normal person might jump to get to above a ledge, the high jumper aims for the ledge in order to engage in the activity of jumping. Thus both rule-governed and goal-governed games can be described as engaging in a goal or role for the sake of the activity this engagement enables. Skepticus calls this “reverse English” (English as in billiards).
Grasshopper must now defend the original goal driven definition against this broader definition encompassing both goals and roles.
Chapter 10 – The remarkable career of Porphyryo Sneak
To make his point, Skepticus describes a spy named Porphyryo Sneak. Sneak is a secret agent who spies by impersonating statesmen. Unlike most spies, Sneak is in his line of work not because of his patriotic duty but because he enjoys playing the role of a head-of-state. Eventually, Sneak purposefully causes international trouble during his assignments in order to invigorate the spying business so he can continue to role play. This illustrates reverse English as Sneak is engaging in spying as a means to play the role, going so far as to be able to setup future roles for himself (in the same way a child plays House).
Grasshopper takes over the narrative at that point and describes a conclusion of the story where Sneak exits spying all together and is simply impersonating different heads-of-state for its own sake – setting up international crises that he must himself resolve as a different head-of-state. Grasshopper claims that Sneak is merely playing a game with himself where the rules are the fixtures of the role and the goal is to prolongation of the performance through setting up situations for further performance. Thereby falling within the original Game definition.
Skepticus bemoans the de-emphasis of “impersonation” which is central to the story yet lost in the redefinition.
Chapter 11 – The Case History of Bartholomew Drag
Grasshopper describes a man named Bartholomew Drag who enjoys playing various roles in his daily life. Roles like “Supportive Husband”, “Absent Minded Boss”, etc. These are roles which are consistent with his identity and require no impersonation or deceit. Grasshopper argues that this game is essentially identical to the Sneak’s game.
Chapter 12 – Open Games
Grasshopper claims that role-playing (as illustrated in the past 2 chapters) are “open games” – that is games whose goal is the prolongation of the game. “A reciprocating system of role-performance maximization.” Role-players must act within the confines of the role while providing other role-players (or himself) with enough material to continue to role-play. Grasshopper describes non-role driven open games – “open table tennis” where the players are trying to keep the ball in play for as long as possible.
Skepticus objects that open-games are not inefficient, Grasshopper retorts that reading from a script would be the more efficient way to role-play.
Chapter 13 – Amateurs, professionals, and Games People Play
Skepticus claims that professional players do not play Games because they are not following the rules for the sake of the activity it enables but rather the monetary rewards. Grasshopper stipulates that they may not be playing but the activity they are engaged in is still a Game. In essence, Grasshopper makes the point that games are objects distinct from the motive and attitude of the players in the same way that a violin remains an instrument regardless of the motive and attitude of its handler. There is a subtle point regarding to Lusory Attitude where Grasshopper argues that professional players still exhibit the Lusory Attitude because they accept the rules of the game for the sake of the activity they will engage in (it is the activity that makes them money, not reaching the prelusory goal).
On a separate note, Grasshopper describes something called “radical instrumentalism” where games are seen as mere instruments to reach an end. He addresses Games People Play by Eric Berne. Games People Play describes our social scripts and behaviors as games. The book argues that when we have social interactions, we make moves in a set of rule driven social interactions with other people in order to accrue social currency (called Strokes). Grasshopper argues that these are not really games because the players are not playing for the sake of the game. This is where the distinction of professional players comes in – a professional hockey player does not stop playing hockey just because a surplus of pucks are in the other team’s net, but Berne’s players would find no need for the games if they had plenty of Strokes.
Finally Grasshopper decries the proliferation of the word “Game” to describe social interactions and wars. He claims these instrumental “games” are not games at all because they are the most efficient instrument to reach ends and the confusion generated by the use of the word “game” is unnecessary and misleading.
Chapter 14 – Resurrection
In this chapter Suits reflects on his own writing. The chapter opens with Grasshopper returning to life and engaging his pupils. In explaining his resurrection, Grasshopper makes a meta-reference to the author, speculating that they are all characters in a philosophical treatise on Games. He wonders aloud about why the author chose this format, offering that perhaps the author intended to make the subject matter more engaging with a narrative, or that the author is playing a game of presenting philosophical ideas in an inefficient manner.
On another note, Grasshopper makes a distinction between instrumental activities (things done for the result) and intrinsic activities (things done for the activity itself).
Chapter 15 – Resolution
Grasshopper resolves the riddle of his dream from Chapter 1. He describes a Utopia where all material and intellectual needs are satisfied. We can instantly have any material good (yachts, mansions) and all scientific knowledge is known. In addition, advances in psycho therapy makes everyone perfectly amiable and no interpersonal conflicts exist.
Grasshopper claims that there would be no instrumental task left to do because all ends would be achieved. Of intrinsically important activities art would be pointless without pathos of human conflict/suffering. Games are by definition the only things that remain – doing something inefficiently for the sake of the activity rather than the result. Therefore, a man might play at being a carpenter for the fun of carpentry rather than the chair which results (since in Utopia chairs are abundant). A man might play at discovering scientific facts that are already known (like how a riddle solver doesn’t want to know the solution before he’s tried to solve it).
A Grasshopper, as he defines it, is one who lives as if this ideal reality is already true. This is why Grasshopper could not work in the summer. Yet Grasshopper realizes that most would be dissatisfied with working to no result such that if such a Utopia existed and the worker were told that his work was a mere game, his life would be utterly empty, in some ways cease to matter.
Grasshopper’s dream is about this Utopia. At the book’s close Grasshopper wonders whether he should fear that his theory is correct and all mankind is heading toward such a unsatisfying fate or that all mankind is fine but his theory is wrong.
Conclusion
The book’s subtitle is Games, Life, and Utopia. The principle concern of the book is Games with Life and Utopia making a cameo appearance in the first chapter and playing a central role in the concluding chapter. The core of the book is in the 3rd Chapter where Suits presents his definition of a Game. Most of the remaining Chapters are an exploration and refinement of this definition. Suits has presented Game Studies with its most formalized and nuanced definition of the Game. Yet it is a definition which, despite its proliferation in the academic literature, diverges from many now commonly held beliefs about games. Because of the detailed arguments and stipulations Suits offered in this book, we are able to examine the definition in the context of historic and contemporary Game Studies. And I will attempt this in the second part of the post.
Speculative Chindogu 