Play as Mock War, Psychology of

In many games, warfare and conflict are fundamental aspects of gameplay, and additionally, in many games, social interaction and communication are essential tools in order for the game to function. Without the byplay of social interaction, conflicts and tensions cannot take place. Without conflicts and tensions, there can be no war.

It is widely assumed that conflict is a fundamental psychological development within social grouping when resources become scarce. Unfortunately, we need to regard this primitive instinct as endemic to the way that we behave toward others. Warfare is not necessarily the outcome, but in situations which are specifically designated as playful, subversive, or otherwise allow behavior which can be absolved, the extremist response of mock warfare often surfaces. This can be seen, for example, in children's games, where emotional stimulus can lead to more and more hectic activities, and often acts such as fighting, squabbling, or simply very energetic chasing and shouting games, in which participants resolve their atypical, anti-social behavior by contextualizing it in the equally taboo areas of warfare and conflict.

Children's chasing games often become reconfigured as those of oppositional groups who are at war with each other; for example the renaming of the game as “Cowboys and Indians,” or as more current names gleaned from an imperfect understanding of recent world events, versus another. This author remembers games of Contras and Sandinistas, for example, without any knowledge at the time of who or what these two sides were, but with a full knowledge that the object of the game was to hunt down and “kill” or “shoot” the opposition, and that therefore these two must be natural enemies.

Of course in these games, players do not aim to actually kill each other, any more than they understand the intense political background to their current naming of the game, but may substitute actions such as tapping each other, pointing or miming aggressive acts, including both those of killing and being dramatically killed. If these games become too rough, these impromptu systems collapse (into blame and sometimes, inadvertent hurt), reverting back to societal norms in which fighting and direct physical conflict are deterred. Interestingly, children's games of this nature do not always have winners—for example in the game of Tag, the victim who is caught becomes the chaser—the moment that they manage to “tag” someone else, their position is lost.

The “winners” in this game are therefore those not being caught—unusual in that they are the majority, not the identified. The person who must chase the others to stop being “it” may become increasingly tired in his or her efforts to catch a crowd of darting individuals. One might also say this about warfare—the “winners” of any war are those who avoid it entirely or who lend their support without appreciable loss; but at the same time their lack of participation means that they are also the faceless majority. At the same time, the large amount of people who take part and enjoy the communal nature of the game also echoes similar traits within warfare.

...