ABSTRACT
As members of a democratic society, Americans are socialised by means of various myths and rituals characteristic of our popular culture. Among the rituals that reflect, articulate and transmit cultural myths are those of play and games. Materialism and competition are two distinguishing traits of the American character that are reflected in the games we play-from the Superbowl, the national spectacle of championship professional football which is played as much for the profit of television networks and their sponsors as for sport, to Wheel of Fortune, a popular television game show in which players solve word puzzles for expensive prizes and which has been described as American materialism run amok. Present-day America encourages in its citizens unlimited expectations for material wealth and gratification through images in advertising and entertainment media while the constraints of real life put limits on opportunities to fulfil our dreams. The playing of gambling games can provide a form of recreation that is both a product of and a contributor to prevailing cultural myths. In his excellent study of the history of gambling in America, John Findlay (1986) has called Americans ‘people of chance’, because of both traditional risk-taking associated with the history of US frontier expansion and the pervasiveness of gambling recreation throughout our history. It should not be surprising that commercial gambling among adults has become such a significant social and economic issue in our time. In many respects, gambling is a dramatic example of pure conspicuous consumption: money is exchanged for the thrill of the experiencenot for an increase in wealth-because most players lose over the long term. Nevertheless, the thrill of the game, coupled with the hope for a win, has proved to be a powerful attraction. But the nature of gambling in America has changed over time, particularly during the second half of the twentieth century, and the change is consistent with changes in the mass cultural values. This chapter argues that neither change is beneficial to American culture, although both may have some economic benefit.
