“It was foul, and I loved it”: Perverse Play in Virtual Worlds
In his Confessions, St. Augustine recalls stealing pears not for eating, "but to fling to the very hogs.” He reveled in the act not despite its wrongness, but because of it: “It was foul, and I loved it.”
David Sussman calls such acts done “for badness’ sake” perverse actions. This presentation argues that perverse actions are a form of play that can be innocent and healthy, but also deviant. Special attention will be paid to how this manifests in virtual worlds.
Last year, I described play as an ambiguous mental state involving a mismatch between belief and what Gendler calls alief. Beliefs are propositions we consider true; aliefs are automatic responses triggered by stimuli—mental representations, affect, and behavioral tendencies. I define play as the intentional activation of belief-discordant alief.
From this, I developed a taxonomy of ways in which we activate belief-discordant alief (i.e. play): with (1) rule-based activities (games), (2) representations (fiction), and (3) risk-taking. The third includes physical risk (e.g., rollercoasters) and social risk.
This presentation focuses on the latter, which includes banter, i.e. when two or more people insult each other playfully. If I tease a friend, this activates insult-related alief, but he believes I don’t mean it. This teasing can strengthen bonds. I also activate alief tied to fear of retaliation, while believing my friend won’t be truly offended.
This behavior walks the line between play and aggression and can be misused. Someone might insult and, when confronted, claim to be joking. Virtual spaces enable this deviant behavior with anonymity and physical distance, reducing risk while still triggering risk-related alief. These are ideal conditions for trolling and griefing, forms of deviant play.
Through the lens of the playing mind, this presentation offers a framework for understanding perverse play in games and virtual environments.