The Agonistic Worldview

There is something of an ideological tendency in mainstream America, coupled with our adherence to Darwinian capitalism, to view ourselves as wholly autonomous and independent, separate from others. We are in constant competition, we are told, for jobs, homes, salaries, etc. We can depend on no one but ourselves. The individual is lauded as the first and only important unit. I am the only important thing in my world.

I'm drawn to María Lugones' explanation of the "agonistic" worldview because it's so damn useful in describing the underlying notions of this mainstream ideology. She also points out where this worldview fails and why it is ultimately a false one. To recap, "agonsitic" play always centers around some sort of game, and the goal of any "game" is to win (77). Agonistic play is defined by rules, the importance of competition, and the need for "competence" (77). She also identifies that a participant in a game has "a fixed conception of him or herself" (77). Not all games are free-for-alls. Some require team play, in which case, those teams which are most unified are most likely to be victorious.

The essay that she cites (Homo Ludens, by Johann Huizinga) holds that this agonistic form of play pervades all aspects of culture. This is certainly true of our own. Everybody wants to be a winner. Success in our culture, the measure by which we "win" or "lose" that mysterious "game" of life, is judged by the amount of money one has, the way one looks, acts, etc. These are narrow parameters, however. Being fashionable or clean cut has a certain criterion, and there are a finite set of jobs that earn one the significant sums of cash to qualify as successful. The vast majority of these are positions in the machinery of finance capitalism.

The measures of success in our corporate and mainstream culture necessitates a certain kind of unity. To use Lugones' idea of "worlds", the corporate "world" is very hostile to outsiders. If you are male, you don't walk into the office with long hair, and, regardless of who you are, you certainly don't walk into the office in shorts and flip-flops. You wear a suit and tie. You wear a skirt and jacket. You wear a watch. It is not a "world" that allows you to be playful in the sense Lugones champions, to engage in playful self-construction. Your conception of yourself is already fixed by company dress code, by company policy. Your person is defined. It is a "world" that demands agonistic play.

It is also a world that is populated largely by men. As of 2011, women fill less than 15% of executive officer positions in Fortune 500 companies and slightly more than 16% of executive board seats.* Aside from this, our culture is still predominantly male-dominated. Images of male success in the corporate world are abundant, in movies, TV shows, advertisements, etc. Images of women's success are harder to come by, to say nothing of images of success for people of color. 

But that predominantly masculine world is something of a paradox. The agonistic players are unified by ideology, unified in looks, but they are, necessarily, in competition with one another. The unity is such that, in certain circumstances, the movements of the all-important individual are reduced to  lockstep. They are individuals, independent and autonomous, only in certain turns of the game where competition amongst each other is permitted. Individuals gun for better positions and corporate entities squabble for bigger pieces of the pie (the working poor, invisible and inconsequential as they are, get only the crumbs).  

But are we really autonomous? We depend on others for myriad thing. Food, clothing, iPods, everything we buy is made by someone. We depend on others for the things we consume. More poignantly, we depend on our parents for our lives, on our friends and family for enjoyable, playful, creative experiences that Lugones sees as the heart of being. Without constructive play "we do not make sense, we are not solid, visible, integrated, we are lacking" (73). 

American agonsitic ideology seems something of a lie. On the one hand, it claims the individual to be the "fountainhead of human progress," as Ayn Rand says of the ego. But then it reduces the individual can act as that individual wills to act only in certain circumstances, like a piece on a chessboard. It denies a person the possibility of meaningful self-construction.

_____________
*Catalyst, "Statistical Overview of Women in the Workplace"