|
Next, we move from the material to the symbolic
by attempting to specify how this movement of
money is euphemized by all participants
involved. In brief how is gambling, and in
particular the
activities and role of the House, legitimated or
stigmatized? So rather than defining gambling as
a
“recreational expense” (in the lingo of
economics), a “voluntary contribution to a good
cause” (as state
rhetoric often does), or a “poor tax” (as the
radical holds), we take such labels as
themselves data to be
analyzed, and in two ways. First, who are the
primary agents in this process? Whose interests
are served
by the establishment and operation of a gambling
industry? Who opposes it? And while we can say
with
certainty that in the current globalization of
gambling both the state and (Nevadan) gaming
corporations
will be prime actors, the presence or absence of
other societal actors (such as religious groups
or non-
5 This statement of course requires some
qualifying. It assumes that the event
determining outcomes is either
random (as in Goffman’s famous example of two
boys wagering on a coin toss), or, if a contest
of skill, that
participants are of roughly equal capabilities.
6
profits) should be considered as well.6 Second,
how does legitimation occur? What resources do
the
agents identified above bring to the table? What
sorts of alliances do they establish among
themselves?
And most importantly, what sort of symbolic
strategies of issue “framing” do the various
factions engage
in (Goffman 1976)? These questions will
themselves depend on both the current state of
relations within
the field of power—especially both the relation
between the state/bureaucratic field and the
corporate
field and, relatedly, the precise legal channels
through which prohibition or legalization
occur—and its
history—especially, for our cases, the history
of colonialism, racial oppression, and corporate
gambling.
Back to casino
news
|
