(This post contains adult content and might be considered offensive to certain groups)
Procedural rhetoric is a fascinating branch of rhetoric that encompasses “the practice of using processes persuasively,” (Bogost 28) and is a subset of the field that we had not even considered previous to reading Bogost’s Procedural Rhetoric. He goes on to explain that “its arguments are made not through the construction of words or images, but through the authorship of rules of behavior.” What does this mean, precisely? One way this persuasiveness is put into action is through games, such as Cards Against Humanity, a purposely distasteful card game intended for a partying audience. The game successfully fosters an environment where offensiveness is not only acceptable but rewarded. Terribly caustic and inappropriate phrases and jokes presented during the game would be immediately balked at and rejected outside of play. Under the premise of a fun party atmosphere where such behavior is unpunished, however, players’ moral standards quickly dissipate. Whether it was the intention or not, the game reveals to players how “horrible” they are and have the potential to be, given the right circumstances. Moral code is not so steadfast.
Procedural rhetoric is a fascinating branch of rhetoric that encompasses “the practice of using processes persuasively,” (Bogost 28) and is a subset of the field that we had not even considered previous to reading Bogost’s Procedural Rhetoric. He goes on to explain that “its arguments are made not through the construction of words or images, but through the authorship of rules of behavior.” What does this mean, precisely? One way this persuasiveness is put into action is through games, such as Cards Against Humanity, a purposely distasteful card game intended for a partying audience. The game successfully fosters an environment where offensiveness is not only acceptable but rewarded. Terribly caustic and inappropriate phrases and jokes presented during the game would be immediately balked at and rejected outside of play. Under the premise of a fun party atmosphere where such behavior is unpunished, however, players’ moral standards quickly dissipate. Whether it was the intention or not, the game reveals to players how “horrible” they are and have the potential to be, given the right circumstances. Moral code is not so steadfast.
If the name isn’t enough to convince you of the blunt purpose of the
game, look at what it says on the box of the game before it is even opened up:
“A game for horrible people.” In fact, the creators’ website includes single
worded reviews such as “horrible” and “bad”. One word says it all as they
advertise these reviews to build the reputation of the game, adding to the “horrible”
environment as people play. The creators also exploit the bad reputation
further by allowing others to contribute more “bad ideas”. Though arguably the
game’s main purpose, like all games, is to entertain, it also creates an
atmosphere that brings out the dark side in everyone. It's main genius is using
humor to do so.
The object of the game is to collect the most black “statement”
cards. Players must learn to choose white “response” cards that appeal to the
judge. The judge chooses the white card they like the best or find the most
amusing, and the corresponding player obtains the black card for that round.
This creates an interesting psychological twist as players attempt to appeal to
each other’s darker psyches, regardless, perhaps, of their own moral background
or standards.
One of the most persuasive procedures of the game is that the
longer you play, the more desensitized you become. There really is no end in
sight unless players have the miraculous patience to go through all 90 black
cards and 460 white cards in one sitting. In a way, it’s like one of those
amazing road trips where you get to know everyone on a more personal level. The
longer that you're in the car with your friends and the more fast food that is
eaten on the way, the smellier everyone gets. It may start out smelling awful
but the longer everyone is on the ride together, the more desensitized everyone
gets to the bad smell until finally you leave the car, realizing just how clean
the air is outside. In Cards Against Humanity, innocent
‘moral’ people will squirm at some of the cards used like “Masturbation” and
“Nipple blades.” However, the longer the game is played the less ‘evil’
things seem. Soon the true purpose of the game alights in the eyes of all
players, desperate to be the winning card. And since ‘everyone is doing it’
there’s no longer a sense of judging that usually holds people back from
bringing out their worst sides.
On
a similar note, the game does not hold back when it comes to response cards.
For example, not every player will approve of the card “Pac-man uncontrollably
guzzling cum,” but it is included in the game anyway. When “Kids with ass
cancer” is an option, “Tasteful sideboob” seems perfectly mild. This lack of
un-offensive card options lowers the player’s inhibitions and helps the
creators’ accomplish their goal.
Another intriguing aspect to the game that
undoubtedly contributes to the player’s propensity to behave offensively, is
the relative anonymity involved. This is especially true when larger groups of
people play, which is common given that it is marketed as a party game. When
players add their own despicable answers to the mix for the judge to choose, unless
their card is selected, no one knows they put it down. This concept adds an
element of risk and excitement to the game as well. People are more likely to
lay down wildly distasteful and hilarious cards because the risk for
repercussions (i.e. being “caught”) are lower.
In what
many would consider a politically correct society, this game has no place.
Perhaps that is what has made the game so successful. It is a stress release,
or rather, a tool that facilitates the release of the offensive and overly
sexual in a way that can be laughed at but also invites discussion. This was
almost certainly part of what the creators’ hoped to accomplish with the game.
As Bogost’s states, “Each unit operation in procedural representation is a
claim about how part of the system it represents does, should, or could
function,” (Bogost 36). For all the reasons cited above, it is clear that the
game has successfully utilized procedural rhetoric to help players have fun,
invite discussion, and demonstrate that (in the right environment) anyone can
be a “horrible” person.
Also be sure to check out Daniela's post on procedural rhetoric at http://danielapensatroppo.blogspot.com
