Sui Generis Micro Social Structures: The Heuristic Example of Poker

Abstract

Abstract This article uses aspects of (no prior knowledge of the is required) as a heuristic example to facilitate arguments to the following conclusions. Micro social structures have a sui generis aspect to them. Social structures are simultaneously a set of relations between positions and interactional relations between people. Micro structures have some of the features usually only associated with macro structures but nonetheless there are qualitative differences in kind between macro and micro structures. The article thus retains the insights associated with both interactionist and structuralist positions with respect to sociology's long history of debate about structure and agency. But it also shows both poles of debate to be significantly mistaken. Resume Cet article emploie des aspects de poker [un jeu des cartes] (aucune connaissance anterieure du jeu nest exigee) comme exemple heuristique pour faciliter des arguments aux conclusions suivantes. Les structures sociales micro ont un aspect sui generis a elles. Les structures sociales sont simultaniment un ensemble de relations entre les positions etles relations interactionnelles entre les personnes. Les structures micro ont certains des dispositifs habitue1lement seulementlies a de macro structures mais neanmoins il y a des differences qualitatives en nature entre tie macro et micro structures. L'article maintient ainsi les perspicacites liees aux positions d'interactionist et de structuralist en ce qui concerne l'histoire de la sociologie longtemps tie la discussion au sujet de la structure et de l'agence. Mais il montre egalement les deux poteaux de la discussion a confondre sensiblement. Introduction The intention of this article is to provide a new lens through which to focus attention upon the long standing debates and theoretical issues concerning the relationship between human agency and sui generis social structure. We shall examine the emergence of a particular kind of micro social structure found in a particular example of social interactive phenomena: games of poker. Two things must be made clear from the start. First, no knowledge of the of will be required to understand the sociological points made in this article. Good players will find the descriptions of the game's features, examples of strategy etc. relatively unremarkable and incontrovertible. Those who have never played should also find nothing difficult to grasp about such features of the as are analysed here. On the other hand, those who do play often yet are not very good at it (which is to say most players) may import some of their confusion and misconceptions into the interpretation of the article. This is perhap s unavoidable but if the points concerning structure and agency are missed, such readers might at least find some suggestive ideas for improving their play. The second thing which must be made clear is that though is a and lam using it to make some sociological points, I am not a game theorist. I have serious reservations about such theory in all its formulations and applications. Nor do I wish to make the claim that the of is in every sense analogous to the game of life. Poker as I shall be using it here is not intended as either metaphor or model. The aspect of which I shall analyse here as a type of sui generis social structure is very definitely not analogous to social structure in general. It is not intended as a metaphor at all. Rather it is an example of a form of social structure. But it is a form, not the form. One of the crucial points which I wish to make is that there are social structures and social structures. The example of is ideally suited to demonstrate features of social reality focussed upon by interactionist perspectives. It involves rules, explicit and implicit interpretation (including the body language of unconscious clues), calculation and deception, impression management, (variably) stable patterns of play, the accessibility and inaccessibility of knowledge, memory and many other subtle features of interaction. …