THIS PAGE HAS BEEN MOVED
If you are not redirected to its new location in a few seconds, please click here
DON'T FORGET TO UPDATE YOUR BOOKMARKS!
THE POWER OF THE SUNS IN THE SIXTIES
A sociological review and analysis
Dedicated to the memory of John McBride
Training Handout
A simulaton game that teaches about inequality
Background
During the late sixties, western
Canada, like many places in the Western World, was experiencing its own
cultural revolution (hippies, drugs, yippies, anti establishment, long
hair, patchouli oil and colourful clothing). Like most things Canadian,
it tended to be more polite, more reticent, and less exuberant than it
was in many places of the USA. Eh? A loose association of activists were
looking for ways to open people's eyes to the unfairness and inequalities
of the established ways of doing things. It was a little naïve to believe
that all that was needed was to demonstrate those inequities to gather
supporters to a movement that would break them down. It was an innocent
era.
Among the loose association
of activists were many Americans who chose to reside in Canada as a means
of avoiding military service in Vietnam. This was a main vehicle for underground
communication between western Canada and the USA.
Part of the "non-hippie" protest
of the sixties included young people who went to poor countries as "volunteers"
to offer skilled assistance at local salaries. Cuso, for example, was founded
six weeks before the formation of the American Peace Corps in 1961, by
the amalgamation of three volunteer overseas programmes organised by the
three main universities in Canada. (The big difference between them was
that Cuso salaries were paid mainly by the hosts, Cuso being an NGO, while
US Peace Corps volunteers were American civil servants, PC being a branch
of the US bureaucracy). By the late sixties, hundreds if not thousands
of these had returned to Canada, many of them radicalised by the experience
of living in poor countries, and newly aware that the answer was not aid
but rather a more fair treatment in international trade and
finance.
The loose association coalesced
into a group which named itself "The Fraser Group" which was to cock-a-snook
at the "Fraser Institute," a regional far right wing, think tank. This
cynicism in naming was extended to their news letter which was called "Bias,"
to demonstrate that all publications were biased, but this group thought
itself honest enough to say so.
Someone brought a mimeo sheet
with a game which said it was produced by a political science commune at
Berkeley. It was in the public domain. It was eagerly taken up by several
activists, and started being used as an educational tool in schools, among
church groups, local voluntary associations and any group that appeared
to have potential players. The activists had found a tool for the eye opening
that they wanted to undertake.
In the greater Vancouver, BC,
area, the most enthusiastic and active organiser of the games was John
McBride, a Vancouver school teacher.
The game did not come fully
developed, and activists who had been facilitators for running the games
compared notes, made modifications and tested out variations. There was
no one "orthodox" game among the many variations that were being
played.
Essentials
The game was run by a facilitator
and, optimally, three assistants. Non-participating observers were discouraged
or forbidden.
The game was described on the
mimeo sheet as a three tiered political system where participants experienced
some of the differing characteristics within each of the three levels (groups/classes).
It was found that it worked best with thirty participants, plus or minus
a half dozen. It worked best when spread over a two or three hour period.
The first part was composed of trading sessions of five or six minutes
each, interspersed by solidarity sessions of four to five minutes each.
After about four or five of each of these, the group must be debriefed
by the facilitator, which may take an hour or more. The debriefing session
is essential because the trading and solidarity sessions produce a large
amount of energy, mostly based upon frustration and outrage, and that energy
needs to be channelled into educational benefits and interpretation of
the experience.
There were three prizes, on
public display, which were to be awarded to the three individuals with
the highest scores.
Players were given a package
of chips, which were made out of school construction paper or cardboard,
each colour representing a different value. The chips represented currency
for the game. Each package of chips was handed out randomly to players.
Some packages, approximately a third, were worth a high amount, others
medium and others a small amount of currency. Players were told to chose
any chip, hide it, and approach someone else who might appear to be willing
to trade. No talking was allowed, unless the two players hold hands, as
in a handshake, during which they could negotiate a trade. They were allowed
to talk until a trade is negotiated, and then were not permitted to talk
after they broke off holding hands. Players could not trade the same colour
chip for the same colour chip.
At the end of the trading session,
the players were grouped into plenary, and all their names were listed
on the board, next to their score, consisting of the sum of the currency
chips they each hold. The top third of scores became squares, the bottom
third became triangles, and the middle group became circles.
The blue squares, yellow circles
and red triangles were also made out of school construction paper or cardboard,
and worn around the neck by means of a string looped through a hole in
each. (The colour and shape symbols had meanings to activists in the sixties).
A ceremony was held to place the square, circle or triangle (class identification
necklace) on each participant.
Early on, it became too obvious
that a "mistake" had been made that unequal currency chips must be traded.
Participants became suspicious. After discussions with participants, and
among the loose association of activists, it was agreed that there would
be an advantage in accepting a chip of lower value than the one offered.
If there were two or more of the same value, there would be a bonus in
value. That made it a more acceptable rule that traded chips had to be
of different values.
The solidarity session followed
each trading session. The players were grouped into their shape-colour
groups and given four minutes to unanimously choose only one of their number
to receive a bonus currency chip. The size of the bonus chip was large
enough to push the recipient up into the colour-shape group/class above
(triangle to circle; circle to square). At the end of the session, all
the names and scores on the board were reviewed. Any individuals who had
increased their scores enough to move up to a higher shape-colour group/class,
were ceremoniously presented with their new identification necklace. A
player that became too low in his class was quietly moved downward and
given the necklace of the class lower.
The Targets and Objectives
In terms of the stated (more
apparent than real) objectives of winning the prizes, the game was not
fair. Once each player was put in a specific colour/shape group or class,
it was very unlikely that she or he would be able to move out of it. The
fanfare of ceremoniously awarding a different necklace to those who moved
up, was designed to disguise that fact, and make it look as if there were
social mobility.
The fact that most of the players
spent most of their time holding hands and talking with potential partners
in trade, gave the illusion that there was a lot of trading going on. There
was not. Each player felt that he or she was not personally trading but
that there was much trading going on, on either side. There was
much talking.
Remember that the sixties was
an era of the highest rate of social mobility in the western world, if
measured, for example, by the rate of persons going to university whose
parents did not go to university. Young people wanted and expected to do
better than their parents. The game (like life itself) was a great disappointment
to individuals with those values and aspirations. Not just anyone could
grow up to become Prime Minister.
This slow rate of upwards mobility
was most apparent (and important) to players in the red triangles, and
least apparent to the blue squares. That difference in perception was most
important to the facilitator and to be used for raising political awareness
during the debriefing session in the second half of the game.
The facilitator had to be prepared
to pro-actively handle accusations of unfairness during the debriefing.
Those accusations would often come as a surprise to members of the blue
squares, and they were supposed hear them during the debriefing. The lesson
to be learned was that those persons closest to the top are the ones most
in favour of the rules, those nearest the bottom who believe they have
less of a stake in the official system. During the debriefing, the facilitator
had to explain that the purpose of the game was not to win the prizes,
but to learn and understand some of the features of inequality.
The facilitator needed also
to handle accusations of manipulation. The frustrations and feelings of
unfairness, especially among the red triangles, needed to be channelled
into learning about society and its power arrangements. All learning situations,
to some extent, are manipulations. Society is unfair. People are born into
different classes, different ethnic groups, different income categories,
without choice. The ones who are most the subjects of discrimination, the
ones who face poverty, the ones in the bottom classes, are the ones most
aware of the unfairness of society. The comfortable middle class is not
so aware. The ones at the top have the most to lose if the rules
are changed.
The original distribution of
currency chips was random. That is like the situations we find ourselves
at birth; we do not choose our parents. Once the currency chips were randomly
distributed, the players found themselves in an upper, middle or lower
class, and it was probable that they would remain their for the duration
of the game.
Frustration among the red triangles
was quickly elevated, and sometimes resulted in a "coup" or "rebellion."
Sometimes the three prizes were "liberated" and confiscated by the red
triangles. That was considered an opportune time to suspend the trading
and solidarity sessions, and move to the second part of the game,
the debriefing.
Society, in western Canada
in the sixties, was (as it is today) unfair. There was bigotry and discrimination
against native Indians (now called "First Nations"), Chinese, south Asians,
welfare recipients, beggars, and the few persons of African descent. The
middle class smugly assumed there was no discrimination; that it happened
only in the southern USA, but not here. For those persons in such groups,
and for the poor, they well were aware of the unfairness of society, but
it took a game like Starpower to demonstrate it to the smug comfortable
majority.
It also demonstrated the kinds
of strata that were to be found in caste India or apartheid South Africa;
and between rich and poor nations.
With a skilled and erudite
facilitator, the debriefing session became the means through which the
players could express their frustrations and experiences, then relate them
to the political realities of their own society and to the world
at large.
Variations in the Rules
The game was not played exactly
the same way every time. The rules were certainly not written in stone.
Variations were tried; facilitators compared notes, and useful changes
were added by others.
Early on, the lengths of times
for the trading sessions were ten to fifteen minutes. This dragged the
game on, and they were shortened. As they approached five minutes, the
game moved along better.
Similarly with the solidarity
sessions moving from ten to four minutes.
At first there was no bonus
for having more than one currency chip of the same colour, but that was
added to the scoring to give an excuse for the rule that equal colours
could not be traded.
Some facilitators gave a new
set of chips to everyone after one set of trading and solidarity sessions.
The packages of ships were still grouped into the three levels, although
they were randomly unequal within the boundaries. Other facilitators just
let the players continue on with the chips they had.
The prizes were unique at first,
but later became items that could be distributed to all during the debriefing,
such as cases of beer, large cakes, or boxes of cookies or muffins. (Beer
was not used in schools).
It was discovered that players
who had played before (even many who had only read the mimeo sheet) did
not play as enthusiastically as those who had never heard of the game.
A rule was added that anyone who had played before could not play again.
Such persons were recruited as assistant facilitators. Enthusiasm (for
winning the prizes) was needed as an energy source in the game. If you
are reading this, you should be disqualified as a player, but could be
a good facilitator or assistant.
Some enthusiasts decided to
make a huge game with over a hundred students from across Canada for two
weeks. A grant was obtained (by activists mainly from the Toronto area)
from CIDA, and permission from the army to use the huge outdoor terrain
at Shylo in southern Manitoba, a reserve usually used for military exercises.
The participants became residents of five "nations" with a tent each and
huge variations in comfort, the richest nation having a fridge, luxury
deserts, cots and far more food than needed, while the poorest nation had
bare survival. Trade items encouraged the nations to interact. Many adults
worked as ongoing facilitators, and they included a doctor, two nurses,
a psychologist, a nutritionist, and several teachers, all of whom were
briefed to make sure no one hurt themselves (facilitators had oranges,
for example, to give to residents of the poorest nation to ensure they
had some nutrition). All the facilitators carried citizen band walky-talky
radio transceivers, and could congregate wherever they were needed. (This
confused several truckers on southern Manitoba and northern North Dakota
highways who were trying to figure out who were "Big Pumpkin," "Spook"
and other amusing names given to the nations in the game, or to codes for
certain conditions or instructions).
The results were spectacular,
the players of the richest nations began acting like fascists, and the
rebellions organizing thefts of supplies were generated by the poor nations.
It became too intense, however, and the game had to be called after one
week, instead of two, and many hours of debriefing were needed on the next
day.
It was ironical that the young
man who became the president of the richest nation, ended up acting like
a totalitarian dictator, much to his later embarrassment because, as he
explained during the debriefing, he had been a socialist activist in real
life. Nevertheless, he had got totally "sucked in" by the game
The game worked. Not as a fair
game for competing for the prizes, but as an eye opener for those comfortably
unaware or uncaring about inequities in society. One important thing learned
was that it happened much more quickly that the planners had earlier predicted.
Another thing learned was the importance of the facilitator using the frustration
as an energy source during the debriefing to explain the purpose of the
game, and to draw parallels in society. All necessary time needed to be
employed to reduce the frustration or discontent, and convert that to an
effective learning resource.
Time Passes
By 1971, I (this author) had
to end my participant observation. I won a Commonwealth scholarship paid
by the Ghana government to go to the University of Ghana to do my PhD in
development sociology. Thus ended my membership in the Fraser Group and
my work as co-editor of Bias. From Ghana I went to many locations, mostly
in Africa and Asia; I briefly visited Vancouver from time to time, but
never lived there again.
The game apparently stopped
being played throughout western Canada. The flower children at Haight and
Ashbury were replaced by drug addicts and hookers, and their parasites,
the pimps and dealers. Starpower was subverted by corporate America, and
was given a copyright in 1993, becoming a tool of profit, the property
of other pimps and dealers, instead of an awareness raising tool in the
public domain by naive and idealistic sixties activists.
I heard from friends that the
big game held on the military land in southern Manitoba was repeated, but
I have no details. There was no widespread use of the internet then, and
going overseas meant being cut off from easy and rapid
communications.
The ideal of the game, as a
means of raising political awareness, remains, however, and can still be
used by other enthusiasts in other countries, other cultures and other
times. Done right, it is very effective.
––»«––
Appendix; Some correspondence
Phoebe:
1. Do the players
know the value of the chips before they start trading?
Phil:
Yes. We put the chip
values up on the blackboard.
Phoebe:
2. During the negotiations/hand
holding part, what do they talk about, i.e. do they tell each other what
they have
Phil:
They are permitted
to talk about anything they want, but only if they are holding hands. They
may choose to reveal or not reveal what chips they have. (As the game progresses,
the higher class often talk about better rules for their own advantage,
the middle group talks a lot about nothing, and the lower group members
hatch plots to steal or "liberate" the prize).
Phoebe:
3. Could you explain
further the advantage of accepting a chip of lower value?
Phil:
Two of a kind would
be worth more than the sum of their face values. For example, a purple
chip alone might be worth ten, but two of them would be worth forty of
fifty. Three chips would be worth even more than the sum of their face
values. A player might be willing to give up a chip of a higher face value
if it added to the number of chips that were the same.
The important thing is that
this does not really allow for a lot of social climbing, but each player
gets an impression from the noise of all the talk that there is a lot of
trading going on around them. There is not.
Phoebe:
4. Also, I very vaguely
seem to recall that the group that had the most chips after each trading
session was allowed to make/revise the trading rules for the next trading
session. Does this sound familiar?
Phil:
Yes. This rule was
added later. There is a session when each group would sit in its own circle,
and the lower groups could elect one person to be sent up to the next higher
group (by allocating a group value), and the person with the lowest score
in the higher group had to go to a lower group. At that time the highest
group could make new rules, and were given a minute to announce them to
the plenary.
This is an oversight
of mine. I think maybe (not immediately) I should Edit the paper so these
questions are somehow answered in the paper.
Phoebe:
Once again, I thank
you for your help and patience in answering what must sound like really
stupid questions.
Phil:
As an educator, like
you, I have a philosophy that says, "No question is a stupid
question."
––»«––
Later
Phoebe:
1. Before the first
chip-trading begins, what are the players told about the purpose of the
trading?
Phil:
Get the highest score to win the prize.
Phoebe:
2. If they're told
that it's to get as many high value chips (or points) as possible, why
would the highest value group (the squares?) want to trade
at all?
Phil:
The prize does not
go to the group; it goes to the individual with the highest
score.
It is the lowest,
not the highest, group that realises first that the trading is
useless.
Phoebe:
3. Could you give
me some examples of the new rules that would be made by the
"highest" group?
Phil:
All gold (or highest
value chips) must be surrendered to members of the highest group (eg blue
squares).
Everybody must pay
a tax to the highest group, to pay for their "care taking" of the whole
group of players.
Changes in values
of the chips or getting more than one of a kind (usually in ways that benefit
the highest group to the disadvantage of the others).
No females allowed into the
highest group.
Phoebe:
Why would the groups
elect a person to move either up or down?
That is, on what basis would
they do so?
Phil:
The whole group is
told to do so. The lowest group has the most solidarity, and usually does.
The middle group usually argues too long about whom to choose, and loses
the opportunity. In the upper and middle group, it must be the person with
the lowest score who goes down.
Phoebe:
4. At what point
do you stop the trading sessions?
Phil:
Trading sessions
are alternated with the other sessions. Usually four or five are enough.
A good facilitator can sense the level of anxiety, frustration and/or anger,
and stop it when it is sufficient to use for discussion. About half the
time the lowest group steals the prize or causes a revolt, and that is
a good time to stop the trading sessions.
––»«––
Where are they now?
Warren
Allmand, Rocky Amos, Bergen Amren, Dorothy Carr, Mike Casey, Doug Coward,
Gordon Fish, Barry Flemming, Linda Freeman, J. Fuccilo, Carole Gagnon,
Marion Geros, Nigel Hawkesworth, Mary Krug, E. Lai, Kavi Levitt, John McBride.
Don Morrison, Tom Morton, Bob Sallery, Murray Sallis, Mark Schlingerman,
Michael Sinclair, Linda Smith, Paul Sweezy, Hendryk Urbanski,
John Wilcox. Susanne Wise, P.A. Wright.
––»«––
* nb: The sun is a star.
––»«––
If you copy text from this site, please acknowledge the author(s)
and link it back to www.cec.vcn.bc.ca This site is hosted by the Vancouver Community Network (SCN)© Copyright 1967, 1987, 2007 Phil Bartle
Web Design by Lourdes Sada
––»«––Last update:
2011.08.16
|