Gambling, Exchange Systems, and Moralities

Abstract

History and ethnography show us that, across societies of the past and present, gambling varies considerably with respect to its organization, social meanings, and how it is regarded in moral terms. This paper presents a basic scheme for analyzing the relationship between gambling and society. A theoretical starting point is that reciprocity is fundamental to social and economic systems. An anthropological theory of exchange systems makes a broad distinction between a structural dimension (generalized versus balanced reciprocity) and a normative dimension (from voluntary to involuntary). A model of four basic forms of reciprocity, each having a characteristic exchange mode and morality, can thus be constructed. Gambling is here understood as an exchange system embedded in the reciprocal orders of society and having a necessary relationship to these; it can take on the characteristics of such an order or it can be regarded as conflicting with it. Much of the variation in the form and morality of gambling therefore emerges as systematic and explainable by a theory of forms of reciprocal exchange.

The Role of Cultural Factors in Differentiating Pathological Gamblers

“…Anthropological and cross cultural studies underline that gambling takes on different meanings in different cultural contexts and serves different functions with regard to the relationship between the gambler and his/her community (Cf. Binde 2005;Goodale 1987;Woodburn 1982). Ethnographic studies show that cultures play a central role in the identification of what makes a ''good'' vs a ''pathological'' player, in the elaboration of hypotheses as to the nature of pathological gambling, its aetiology and treatment (Luck and Bond 1992), in making decision to turn or not to turn to Health services (GAMECS PROJECT 1999).…”

From Boredom to Dependence: The Medicalisation of the Swedish Gambling Problem

“…However, gambling problems and the descriptions of problem gamblers have seldom been studied in this context (Markham & Young, 2015). Gambling behaviours are deeply rooted in social and historical contexts (Binde, 2005b and2005c) but, as argued by Egerer & Marionneau (2015), the DSM classifications have helped to establish a description of this phenomenon that is insensitive to cultural differences.…”

Rationaliser les comportements de jeu

“…Le double doute se vit chez les joueurs de loterie qui ont peur de gagner dès qu'ils consentent à entrer dans le jeu ; s'ils veulent toucher le gros lot, ils doivent endosser le rôle de voleur cherchant à s'emparer de l'argent des autres participants (Binde, 2005). Or, un principe moral -religieusement construit -vient les culpabiliser de cette conduite.…”