Book Reviews

Against Flow: Video Games andthe Flowing Subject
Braxton Soderman
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2021.
Acknowledgments, introduction,conclusion, notes, references, index.
328 pp. $40.00, hardcover.
ISBN: 9780262045506
In the 1960s and 1970s, Mihaly Csikszentmihályi developed his theory offlow. According to Csíkszentmihályi,flow occurs when individuals engage inan activity, and during this engagement,
their skill levels are balanced against theactivity’s level of difficulty. If the activity’schallenge level is too low, boredom may
result, causing the individuals to disengage. Conversely, if the challenge levelis too high, the individuals may becomefrustrated. In this case, individuals may
also disengage. It is only when the skill
level and challenge are balanced that flow
can be achieved. When this state of mind
occurs, Csíkszentmihályi maintains, theactivity becomes enjoyable. Although flow
theory can be applied to a variety of contexts—playing chess, creating art, playing
a sport—Braxton Soderman is primarily
concerned with how flow theory connectsto video game play in Against Flow: VideoGames and the Flowing Subject. Achieving a flow state has long been held up as apositive goal for video games, but according to Soderman, this goal needs to bechallenged.
Soderman’s critique is neatly laid out
step-by-step through an introduction,
five subsequent chapters, and a conclusion. The introduction and first chapter
provide a comprehensive overview ofCsíkszentmihályi’s theory. Later chapters

examine the politics of enjoyment, flow’sconnection to planned obsolescence,
capitalism’s penchant for production andconsumption, comparisons between video
games and older media forms, the ability
to maintain critical distance while playing
a video game, and an examination of flow
in independent games. Soderman’s conclusion rounds out the text by examining thecritical futures of flow.
As originally proposed, Csíkszentmihályi considered flow a better response
to capitalism than Marx’s socialism. Insum, Csíkszentmihályi asserted that flow
would enable individuals to avoid alienation from their work by achieving a flow
state and thus turning work into a pleasurable activity. In essence, social revolution
is unnecessary when work becomes play.
In contrast, Soderman explains that flow
has been commodified; game developers actively create games to help players
achieve a flow state. On one hand, games
serve as a distraction from the troublesome issues found in capitalist societies.
As Soderman asserts, “. . . flow can function not as a peak experience of enjoyment, but rather as a way to manage andcope with personal and social problems”(p. 63). Second, achieving flow while playing a video game results in a pattern ofproduction and consumption that merelyreinforces the capitalist ideology. In bothcases, flow actually reinforces capitalism’sideology as opposed to emancipating oneself from its grasp. Soderman also criticizes
society’s movement toward gamification,
which similarly makes work, education,and other aspects of our daily life merely agame to be played (what Csíkszentmihályi
termed the politics of enjoyment), butwhich also falls prey to capitalist ideology

337

338

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF

P L AYmaking it easier to commodify these activities. Moreover, the politics of enjoyment
and use of flow theory pushes individual
solutions over collective ones. This, too,also falls neatly under capitalism’s wing.
As Soderman moves through hiscritique, he provides a few options. One
is to not use flow for purely pleasurable
purposes, but also for reflection and critical distance by encouraging individuals to
adopt an outside perspective rather thanan inside perspective focused on the gameplay. This outside perspective allows theplayer to consider issues such as insecurity and social anxiety, among others. It
is not that play and enjoyment should beabandoned but, instead, that play should
encourage interpretation. Soderman designates this experience as critical flow.
Soderman then situates the potential for
critical flow within the rise of independent
games as a counter to dominant mainstream game development. Independent
games, he claims, offer the opportunity foran outside perspective. The possibility toenact an outside perspective is rooted in
the difference between games and playfulness. Csíkszentmihályi stated that games
are playfulness that has been tamed but
also that playfulness can remove the constraints of a game—playfulness provides away to emancipate games. In short, “Playfulness renovates rather than opposes.
Playfulness does not change what exists;rather, it changes how we view whatalready exists” (p. 206). The ability tochange how we view what already exists
is the outside perspective.

While Soderman provides a logicalprocess to make his arguments, one mustquestion the usefulness of his critique. At
two points, Soderman alludes to potential problems. In chapter 5, he recounts
Christopher Byrd’s review of the game
Donut County. In his review, Byrd comments that the game did not make him
think differently about gentrification (thegame’s focus), but the game did help him
escape his real-world problems. In Soderman’s view, the game was too immersive
for this player. However, it is important toquestion whether the average game player
really wants to be made aware of thesesocietal issues if escapism is the primarygoal. Will these outward views of society’sills be merely shrugged off as inconsequential? This is an important question to ask.
Soderman also discusses how the mainstream game developers tend to commodify the innovations made by independent
developers, trapping these new ideas in
the continual cycle of capitalistic production and consumption. While renovationis poised in opposition to innovation, whatstops mainstream developers from coopting these renovations as well, especially if
players are more concerned with escapism? In short, do the game players evencare? That does not mean that Soderman’sideas are not worthy of further consideration but, instead, that these ideas need tobe situated in the day-to-day lived experience of the individuals playing games.
—Mark D. Cruea, Ohio Northern University, Ada, OH