How Luhmann's systems theory can inform gambling studies

C i ical Gambling S udies (2020) Vol. 1, No. 1 How Luhmann’s sys ems heo y can in o m gambling s udies Michael Ege e a,*, Vi e Ma ionneau a, Mikko J. Vi anen b a Cen e o Resea ch on Addic ion, Con ol, and Go e nance CEACG, Facul y o Social Sciences, Uni e si y o Helsinki b Facul y o Social Sciences (SOC), Tampe e Uni e si y Abs ac - Gambling and p oblem gambling s udies end o be cha ac e ised by indi idual-based app oaches bo h heo e ically and me hodologically, while sociological app oaches emain unde u ilised o e en ma ginal. In his s udy, we discuss he po en ial o Niklas Luhmann’s sys ems heo y in he analysis o gambling. As opposed o posi i is o indi idualis ic app oaches, Luhmann’s wo k is s ongly cons uc i is : nei he sys ems no hei componen s a e seen o be made up o indi iduals. Using sys ems heo y in in o ming gambling esea ch dis ances he esea ch in e es s om indi iduals and di ec s i owa ds socie al mechanisms, s uc u es, and p ocesses. The e o e, a sys ems heo e ical app oach can o e no el ools o s udy gambling, bu also he pa adigm o gambling esea ch i sel . This pape demons a es how sys ems heo y can c i ically in o m gambling esea ch h ough i e ope a ionalisa ions: gambling as a sys em, he gambling expe ience, he egula ion o gambling economies, gambling p o ide s as o ganisa ions, and sys ems heo y as a me hodological p og am. These i e ope a ionalisa ions can se e as an impo an window o widen pe spec i es on gambling. Keywo ds: gambling, sys ems heo y, Luhmann, me hodology, sociology In oduc ion Gambling is a ho oughly sociological phenomenon. P e ious esea ch has shown ha social se ings no only in luence who gambles and on wha , bu also wha kind o jus i ica ions a e used in i s egula ion, who can p o ide i , and how accep able gambling is (e.g., Chambe s, 2011; Ege e e al., 2018a; O o d, 2011; Sallaz, 2006). Howe e , esea ch looking a he social s uc u es behind gambling has had a ma ginal posi ion in a ield ha has been s ongly ocused on me hodological and heo e ical indi idualism. This has no only been ue o he dominan posi ion o biopsychological iews which app oach p oblem gambling as a men al o beha iou al diso de , bu also o economic heo ies po aying he ac o gambling as consump ion (see Aas ed, 2003; Ma ionneau, 2015). This indi idualis app oach has a ec ed how we iew p oblem gamble s, and also how we conside gambling p o ision o e en gambling esea ch (c ., he ecen deba e on whe he gambling is a capi alis conspi acy (e.g., Del abb o & King, 2017; Li ings one e al., 2018)). Viewing he gambling o e o he gambling habi in e ms o social s uc u es ins ead o indi iduals comes close o how he Ge man sociologis Niklas Luhmann * Co esponding au ho . Add ess: Cen e o Resea ch on Addic ion, Con ol, and Go e nance CEACG, Facul y o Social Sciences, P.O. Box 9 (Sil a uo enpenge 1A), FIN-00014 Uni e si y o Helsinki, Finland. Tel.: +358-2941-23919 E-mail add ess: michael.ege e @helsinki. i (1927–1998) desc ibed his sys ems heo y. Fo Luhmann, nei he sys ems no hei componen s a e made up o indi iduals. Ins ead, sys ems a e bo h based on and enable communica ion, o mo e p ecisely, hey p ocess and cons i u e meaning communica i ely. Luhmann (1984) sees sys ems as necessa y s uc u es ha educe en i onmen al complexi y ( Komplexi ä sge älle ) and cons an ly c ea e o de , which can be an icipa ed and o which u he communica ion can success ully connec . Using sys ems heo y o in o m gambling esea ch he e o e na u ally dis ances he esea ch in e es s om indi iduals’ in en ions and ac ions. Ins ead, he sys ems heo y looks owa ds he ep oduc ion o socie al mechanisms, s uc u es and p ocesses independen o indi idual in en ions o gamble. The sys ems heo y has been applied o a numbe o ields, in pa icula hose closely connec ed wi h communica ion such as media s udies, o ganisa ions, and ansla ion (Gö ke & Schöll, 2006; Seidl & Becke , 2006; Seidl & Mo mann, 2015; Tyulene , 2009; Vogd, 2011), bu also in alcohol esea ch (Deman & Ra n, 2013). Al hough gambling has no been iewed as a Luhmannian sys em in p e ious esea ch, sa e o b ie M. Ege e e al. / C i ical Gambling S udies, 1 (2020) 12-22 13 de elopmen s by Wenning (2017) and D ews and Wuke ich (2019), gambling s udies ha e conside ed he opic, pa icula ly om he pe spec i e o how gambling- ela ed phenomena a e p ocessed and concep ualised di e en ly be ween disciplines and ields, i.e., sys ems. All sys ems p ocess gambling di e en ly. Gambling has been iewed as economic ac i i y o as a ma e o inancial p oblems (e.g., Heiskanen, 2017). As a highly egula ed ield, gambling is also p ocessed and obse ed by he legal sys em (e.g., Be ei e & S o , 2018; Li le & Fijnau , 2006) and highly embedded in he poli ical sys em ha iews gambling h ough i s e ec s on democ acy and poli ics (e.g., Adams, 2008; Ege e e al., 2018b; Loe , 2018). The medical sys em has in eg a ed dys unc ional gambling in o i s sys em h ough medicalisa ion (e.g., Fe en zy & Tu ne , 2013; Rosec ane, 1985). O he gambling li e a u e has de eloped amewo ks o accoun o he gambling indus y as a sys em (Bje g, 2011; Kingma, 2004, 2015; Li ings one & Adams, 2011; Li ings one & Woolley, 2007; Ma kham & Young, 2015; Nicoll, 2013, 2019), bu no om a Luhmannian pe spec i e. The aim o he cu en pape is o ad ance he sociology o gambling by discussing how Luhmann’s sys ems heo y can in o m gambling s udies and wi h wha kind o p ac ical applica ions. Gambling as a sys em? Luhmann s i ed o shape a comp ehensi e social heo y buil a ound he idea o sys ems. His heo y emb aces li ing beings as well as social s uc u es. S ill sys ems heo y is as much a concep ual endea ou as i is a esea ch p og am; in he end wha sys ems a e and how hese a e in e ela ed emains an empi ical ques ion (Vi anen, 2015a). On he mos gene al le el, Luhmann dis inguishes be ween o ganic sys ems, psychic sys ems and social sys ems. Gambling as a sys em would be pa o social sys ems. This does no mean ha social s uc u es a e disconnec ed om biological o psychological p ocesses. Ins ead, he o ganic and he psychic sys em a e pa o he en i onmen o he gambling sys em. Social sys ems can be sepa a ed in o socie y, o ganisa ions and in e ac ions (Luhmann, 1984; Seidl, 2005). He e, gambling can be seen as pa o socie y, bu ope a ional s uc u es o gambling may also be conside ed o ganisa ions. Fu he mo e, socie y as sys ems a e subdi ided in o wha Luhmann calls unc ion sys ems, such as he economic and he legal sys em. Finally, he p ima y unc ion sys ems a e di ided in o u he subsys ems (Seidl, 2005). All hese di e en sys em ypes a e o med by cons an ly sepa a ing hemsel es om hei en i onmen . Sys ems he e o e become es ablished h ough di e en ia ion om o he sys ems. In Luhmann’s (1984) e ms, hey become au opoie ic. This means ha hey a e cons an ly p oduced and ep oduced based only on hei own elemen s, esou ces and logic, ins ead o om some hing ou side he sys em. In his sense, Luhmann’s sys ems a e closed a he le el o ope a ions: sys ems can only ake accoun o hei en i onmen om hei own, sys em-speci ic pe spec i e. The con inuous o ma ion o sys ems happens in communica ion. Sys ems a e no based on indi iduals o ac o s bu solely on communica ion. On he one hand, humans ake pa in he cons an chaining o communica ion – i.e. o ma ion o sys ems – by communica ing based on he logic o each sys em. On he o he , sys ems also s ee communica ion by an icipa ing sys em-speci ic chaining o i . This happens based on a bina y code, such as legal/illegal in law, which gi es speci ic meaning o communica ion and hus ep oduces he sys em. Sys ems a e ne e heless open a he le el o in e ac ions. They in e ac wi h hei en i onmen , which consis s o o he sys ems (Seidl, 2005). In con as o a s uc u alis model o ‘choice wi hin cons ain s’, Luhmann (1984) a gues ha sys ems a e no s able because hey need o adap con inuously o changing si ua ions ha o igina e in he changing en i onmen . Luhmann uses he e m s uc u al coupling o desc ibe how sys ems enable he in e p e a ion o each o he and he eby educe en i onmen al complexi y om wi hin he sys em. Two sys ems ne e me ge, bu hey obse e each o he based on hei own logic. Fo example, gambling ope a ion may be iewed as a ques ion o owning and ope a ing a business in he economic sys em, as a ques ion o law in he legal sys em, o as a ques ion o public and indi idual heal h in he medical sys em. Gambling has no been s udied empi ically in his way as a sys em. The ques ion ega ding whe he gambling cons i u es a sys em – and i yes, wha kind – emains open. Se e al possibili ies exis . Gambling could be concep ualised as a subsys em o he economic sys em conside ing he cen al posi ion o money in gambling. Wenning (2017) has classi ied gambling as a subsys em o he en e ainmen sys em. Howe e , en e ainmen is no concep ualised as a p ima y unc ion sys em in he sys ems heo e ical li e a u e, bu a subsys em o he media sys em (Gö ke & Scholl, 2006). I would also be possible o concep ualise gambling as a unc ion sys em o i s own, e en hough c ea ing new sys ems should p oceed wi h cau ion. Wha e en ually cons i u es a unc ion sys em has also been deba ed. Ro h and Schü z (2015) sugges ha hey a e socie al sys ems o he mos gene al o de , i.e. sys ems, which a e no subsys ems o o he sys ems. Each unc ion sys em specialises in a di e en socie al unc ion, and none is dominan o e o he s. Func ionali y in his ega d does no mean a whole-and-i s-pa s explana ion o hei exis ence; sys ems a e no ul illing unc ions o socie y as in Pa sonian s uc u al- unc ionalism. Ra he , sys emic unc ions a e empo a y solu ions o p ocess en i onmen al complexi y (Bo ch, 2011). Figu e 1 isualises he sys emic en i onmen o gambling wi h examples o in e ela ed sys ems and M. Ege e e al. / C i ical Gambling S udies, 1 (2020) 12-22 14 hei bina y codes based on p e ious gambling esea ch and Luhmann’s concep ual wo k. While his has no been empi ically es ablished, o he pu pose o his model we sugges concep ualising gambling as a sys em ha communica es using he bina y code o s ake/non-s ake. This means ha he gambling sys em an icipa es communica ion a ound ‘s ake/non-s ake’, a communica ion which es ablishes he gambling sys em. The s ake can be any hing ha can be ea ed by he sys em as such – money, p ope y o p es ige (see e.g., Simmel, 1983 [1922]; Oldman, 1974; o Reiche z, Niede bache , Möll, Go he, & Hi zle , 2010). Such communica ion would make gambling sel - su icien , i.e. au opoie ic. Gambling as a sys em would only be conce ned wi h economic ansac ions o ques ions o p oblem gambling as en i onmen al complexi y ha would be p ocessed as a ma e o a s ake. The bene i o using s ake/non-s ake is i s lack o ega d o he ype o o igin o he s ake as opposed o o example he economic sys em whe e he o igin o money is pa amoun . Hence o h, economy, heal h o amilies a e no dis ega ded, bu p ocessed in he gambling sys em based on i s own p emises. Fig. 1. The gambling sys em and i s en i onmen . I we unde s and gambling as a unc ion sys em, i would o e a communica ion amewo k ha o he sys ems could no o would s uggle o p o ide. Based on p e ious esea ch, such communica ion could be ha o exp essing i a ionali y and accep able loss o con ol (Cosg a e, 2006; De e eux, 1980 [1949]; Elias & Dunning, 1986; Giddens, 2006). O he s ha e also sugges ed ha he unc ion o gambling is o allow people o demons a e hei quali ies by emp ing he a es (Oldman, 1974; Reiche z e al., 2010; Simmel, 1983 [1922]). Gambling sys em: s ake/non-s ake Family: in imacy/non -in imacy Economy: paymen / non-paymen En e ainmen : un/no un Psyche: conscious/ unconscious Law: legal/ illegal Medicine: heal hy/ unheal hy In ima e ela ionships: lo e/no -lo e Technology: unc ion/ mal unc ion Poli ics: ha ing powe / no ha ing powe Science: ue/un ue M. Ege e e al. / C i ical Gambling S udies, 1 (2020) 12-22 15 F om an opposing iewpoin , Wenning (2017) sees he unc ion o gambling as coping wi h chance and con ingency in a ime o inc eased unce ain y. Whe he mode n socie ies a e indeed mo e unce ain has ne e heless been deba ed (e.g., Binde, 2005 on gambling). Unce ain y is a he p oduced by human decisions, unde s ood as isks (also Beck, 1986). A poin in case is he libe alised gambling ma ke which is egula ed h ough he con ol a he han a oidance o isks (Kingma, 2004). Luhmann (1991) has also add essed he ques ion o unce ain y in mode ni y. In his hinking, mode ni y is no necessa ily mo e unce ain, bu how unce ain y is p oduced has changed. People a e no longe a he me cy o a e. Ins ead, isk e e s o a si ua ion in which a decision needs o be made o a dange no o u n in o ha m, bu ha a he same ime o e s a chance o gain (Luhmann, 1991). Gambling would he e o e be based on isk-seeking ins ead o isk a oidance, simila ly o he insu ance business, o o de eloping de i a es in he s ock ma ke (Esposi o, 2010). Rega dless o whe he gambling is conside ed a unc ion sys em o a subsys em o ano he sys em such as economics o en e ainmen , a sys em heo e ical pe spec i e opens analy ical pa hs o be e unde s and gambling as social phenomenon. I e e y hing else becomes pa o he en i onmen o he gambling sys em, gambling in a sense u ns om being a dependen a iable among o he s in o an independen a iable. This means o example shi ing pe spec i e om why people gamble (excessi ely), o wha (excessi e) gambling is. The gambling expe ience The impac o gambling on he human psychic sys em is an example o sys emic in e ac ion ha conside s he gambling expe ience o he indi idual. Palomäki and colleagues (2013) s udied how losses in poke can be obse ed by he psychic sys em. F om he pe spec i e o a gambling sys em, he emo ions spa ked by a loss cons i u e a pa o he en i onmen ha is p ocessed h ough communica ion. An emo ional eac ion o a loss can esul in wha is called il ing (making de imen al decisions). F om a sys ems heo e ical pe spec i e, his emo ional eac ion and possible il ing needs o be p ocessed and e-in eg a ed in o he gambling sys em. In a way, il ing is al eady in eg a ed in o he gambling sys em since a poke playe con inues o s ake o en disp opo ionally high amoun s o con inue gambling, bu an impassi e eac ion is also a way o con inue and ep oduce he gambling sys em. A playe ’s compe ence no only as a playe bu in emaining in con ol becomes he s ake in he gambling sys em. The inabili y o he psychic sys em o p ocess gambling-induced complexi y – such as he mechanisms o chance, whe he hey be ‘pu e’ o il ed by he gambling indus y as desc ibed by Na asha Dow Schüll (2012) in he wo k on how he gambling business ope a es in Las Vegas o engage he playe o con inue gambling – migh p o ide an explana ion o why gamble s con inue o chase losses o belie e in nea misses (see Sulkunen e al., 2019). Ano he example o how sys ems obse e each o he is p o ided by Bo ch (2013) who s udied he impac s o p oblem gambling on amilies and in ima e ela ionships. He s udy concludes ha hiding gambling- ela ed p oblems om signi ican o he s and gambling in sec e a e phases o p oblem gambling. In a sys em heo e ical ame, us be ween household membe s becomes he s ake. The chance o being caugh ha is embedded in in ima e ela ionships, is he e o e p ocessed by he gambling sys em. T us can be seen as a s uc u al coupling be ween he household and he gambling sys em. Fo he household sys em (in pa icula he in ima e pa ne ), us is pa amoun o enabling and con inuing an in ima e communica ion ha would o he wise, as elabo a ed by Luhmann (1982), be unlikely o succeed. In he gambling sys em, us is he glue ha keeps he sys em unning in he ligh o he isk o losing one’s s ake. Con lic is c ea ed when sys ems p ocess con inual gambling based on a di e ing logic. Fo ins ance, chasing losses would be iewed by he amily o in ima e ela ionship sys em as a ma e o discon inua ion (di o ce) bu by he gambling sys em as con inuous isk- aking o s ake o win. The sys ems heo y he e o e allows iden i ying such con lic s by ocusing a he le el o communica ion a he han indi iduals. The iden i ica ion o he di e en sys emic communica ion in play may also be help ul in mi iga ing such con lic s in p ac ice. The egula ion o gambling economics In he p e ious sec ion, we ha e discussed he possibili y o gambling as a unc ion sys em. Howe e , i is also possible o ope a ionalise Luhmann’s hinking in an analysis o gambling as a subsys em o he economic sys em. Gambling is a o m o economic ac i i y; he exis ence o gambling co ela es posi i ely wi h he p esence o an economic sys em ha is based on mone a y exchange and a high deg ee o socie al complexi y (P yo , 1976). Because he egula ion o gambling ope a es based on he logics o he legal and poli ical sys ems, he in e ac ion be ween economics and poli ics o e s a u he pe spec i e in o how sys ems heo y can be applied o gambling s udies. This app oach comes close o poli ical economy which is he s udy o how economics and public li e (poli ics, law, egula ion) in e ac . In gambling esea ch, he poli ical economy amewo k has been applied o s udies on he in e es g oups in gambling egula ion (Paldam, 2008; Saue , 2001), he in e es s in gambling axa ion (Smi h, 2000), and gambling esea ch i sel (Young, 2013). As such, he poli ical economy pe spec i e aps in o he essence o Luhmann’s sys ems heo y by ocusing on he s uc u al coupling be ween economics and poli ics, o in o he wo ds, how he economic sys em (e.g. e enue gene a ion) obse es he complexi y o he poli ical sys em (e.g. e ec i e egula ions) and ice M. Ege e e al. / C i ical Gambling S udies, 1 (2020) 12-22 16 e sa (see e.g., Chambe s, 2011 on economic and egula o y di e ences ac oss ju isdic ions). Such an app oach migh be pa icula ly ui ul in compa a i e s udies as i would explain why ju isdic ions op o di e en egula o y solu ions despi e simila economic in e es s in he ope a ion o gambling (e.g., Ege e e al., 2018a). Ex ensi e esea ch e idence exis s on he bes p ac ice policies in gambling egula ion, including limi ing a ailabili y, ma ke ing and senso y inducemen s o gamble, implemen ing p e- commi men , and sepa a ing egula ion om inancial in e es s in gambling e enue (see Sulkunen e al., 2019 o a summa y on e idence). While such measu es ha e been implemen ed in some ju isdic ions – including limi a ions on a ailabili y in No way, Russia and se e al Eas e n and Cen al Eu opean coun ies, and he inc easing amoun o limi se ing and p e-commi men ools a ailable pa icula ly in online en i onmen s (Aue , Reies ad, & G i i hs, 2020) – ac ual policies a e o en qui e di e en om ‘op imal’ policies’. This has been a ibu ed o he di icul y in changing es ablished egula o y pa e ns (Ma ionneau, 2015) as well as inancial in e es s and pa h dependencies ha p e en he egula o om implemen ing e ec i e policies o p oblem p e en ion, as hese will impac e enues (Bo ell, 2008; Ege e e al., 2018a; Paldam, 2008). In addi ion o hese, insigh s om Luhmann’s sys ems hinking can o e a u he explana o y pe spec i e. Economics is one o he co e unc ional subsys ems o socie y (Luhmann, 1988; Ro h & Schü z, 2015). Luhmann (1988) desc ibes economy as a sys em in which money plays a cen al pa and o ms he bina y code o communica ion which is paymen /non- paymen . Like all sys ems, he economy is au opoie ic, as i consis s o paymen s ha a e only possible due o paymen s, and which allow u he paymen s. The elemen s o he sys em a e he e o e p oduced in he sys em, and no in i s en i onmen . Since all sys ems o m based on hei speci ic way o communica ion p ocessing, a pessimis ic iew would be ha a emp s a in luencing he economic sys em di ec ly wi h poli ics a e mainly useless (Joas & Knöbl, 2009). The gambling indus y, and i s bene icia ies will look a egula ions om he pe spec i e o how hey impac e enue and no , o example, public heal h conside a ions o he common good o socie y (Nikkinen & Ma ionneau, 2014). S uc u al coupling be ween sys ems enables his in e -sys emic communica ion and links hem oge he . Fo example, con ac s be ween he ju idical and economic sys em, such as ope a ing licenses in gambling, enable he economy h ough legisla ion. The e o e, while Luhmann’s sys ems a e closed in ha hey a e au onomous and ha e exclusi e unc ions and codes o communica ion, he sys ems a e also open o in luences om he ou side en i onmen . The en i onmen does no de e mine he ope a ion o he sys em, bu o he sys ems can con ibu e o i s cons i u ion (Luhmann, 1984). Rega ding gambling s udies and gambling policies, Luhmann’s unde s anding o sys ems and hei mu ual in e ac ion sheds ligh on wha kind o sys emic changes a e possible, and unde wha kind o condi ions. Unlike in Foucauldian go e nmen ali y s udies ha obse e policies h ough, and as in e wo en wi h, he use o di use powe ela ions (see e.g., Lemke, 2019), a Luhmannian pe spec i e does no ake a c i ical s ance om he ou se , no is i pe soni ied in indi iduals. Ins ead, Luhmann ollows he logic o he sys em o show how policy discou ses come in o exis ence and how hey wo k, bo h in ela ion o as well as based on di e en sys em logics (e.g., Vi anen, 2015a; Vogd, 2011;). Luhmann’s heo e ical insigh s would sugges ha egula ions on he gambling sys em a e possible i , ins ead o a emp ing o de e mine ules o ope a ions, hey con ibu e indi ec ly by shaping he s uc u es h ough which gambling is ins i u ionally possible. Gambling p o ide s as o ganisa ions Thus a we ha e only conside ed gambling as a sys em ope a ing in socie y, ei he as a unc ion sys em o as a sub-sys em o economics. Luhmann’s sepa a ion o social sys em ypes in o socie y, o ganisa ions and in e ac ions (Luhmann, 1984; Seidl, 2005) also allows s udying gambling om he poin o iew o he o ganisa ion sys em. Luhmann’s insigh s ha e been p e iously applied in o ganisa ion s udies pa icula ly in Ge man-speaking coun ies (e.g., Seidl & Becke , 2006; Seidl & Mo mann, 2015; Vogd, 2011). In gambling s udies, Kankainen and Hellman (in p ess) ha e looked a he bene icia ies o gambling as an o ganisa ional s uc u e using Luhmann’s concep s, bu no p e ious s udies ha e conside ed gambling ope a ion om he poin o iew o an o ganisa ion as a decision-based sys em. Fo Luhmann, o ganisa ions belong o social sys ems because, simila ly o he unc ion sys ems o socie y, hey a e based on hei own logic ha canno be aced back o indi idual ac o s o o he sys ems. O ganisa ions p oduce and ep oduce hemsel es by dis inguishing hemsel es also om o he o ganisa ions. As wi h o he sys em ypes, dis inc ion and au opoiesis a e a he hea o Luhmann’s unde s anding o o ganisa ions: o ganisa ions can be iden i ied by obse ing he dis inc ion hey make be ween hemsel es and hei en i onmen (Luhmann, 2000; Seidl & Becke , 2006). Howe e , o ganisa ions a ely p ocess communica ion o one sys em only. Ins ead, mos o ganisa ions a e polyphonic; hey b ing sys ems oge he in a con olled manne . Uni e si ies, o example, a e esea ch and educa ion o ganisa ions, bu hey also ha e budge s, con ibu e and adap o legisla ion and hold elec ions as well. The di e se logics o science, educa ion, economics, law and poli ics a e b ough oge he by o ganisa ional decisions making M. Ege e e al. / C i ical Gambling S udies, 1 (2020) 12-22 17 p ocedu es. Fo he o ganisa ion sys em, decision is he elemen a y o m o communica ion p ocessing: o ganisa ions a e ep oduced as chains o decisions (Seidl & Becke , 2006; Seidl & Mo mann, 2015). Fo Luhmann, a decision is no a men al ope a ion bu a o m o communica ion ha is also bina y in he sense ha i includes a selec ed and a ejec ed al e na i e. Luhmann calls his o m o communica ion pa adoxical: he mo e al e na i es a e p esen ed, he less jus i ied he chosen al e na i e appea s, bu he mo e jus i ied he chosen al e na i e is, he less o he op ions will appea as iable al e na i es. This pa adoxicali y is ne e heless also he key o o ganisa ions’ success o abso b unce ain y and achie e esul s: When a decision is eached, al e na i es disappea , and u he decisions a e buil on his decision p emise (Seidl & Becke , 2006). The iew o he decision p emise help o shed ligh on how u he decisions a e based on exis ing ones. Once a decision is eached in an o ganisa ion, u he decisions a e buil on i s – o en eco ded – p emise. Unde s anding es ablished gambling p o ide s as o ganisa ions can he e o e cla i y why hey a e o en pe cei ed as he only possible al e na i e. Na ional gambling ope a ions and sys ems depend on jus i ica ions ha o e shadow possible al e na i es (Ma ionneau, 2015; Ma ionneau, Nikkinen, & Ege e , 2018). Mo eo e , he decision o a gambling ope a o o in oduce new, mo e addic i e games o he consume , is based on he p emise o ea lie decisions o inc ease p o i abili y o channel consump ion away om unlicensed ope a o s. The p emise is he e o e no ques ioned, and he in oduc ion o he new game appea s as a jus i ied nex s ep, e en hough i migh no appea ha way based on he logic o ano he sys em, such as ha o public heal h (c ., Sulkunen e al., 2019). In line wi h Luhmann’s hinking, o ganisa ional decisions a e no made by indi idual decision-make s wi h a ional mo i es. They me ely ollow he logic o he sys em and he p emise o p e ious decisions. Hence, gambling p o ide s as o ganisa ions can ac agains he gene al in e es wi hou needing o s a egically engage in such a di ec ion (c . Del abb o & King, 2017; Li ings one e al., 2018). Following he sys ems heo y, no only he logic o he economic sys em bu p e ious decisions o he o ganisa ion sys em in e ene in public in e es policy-making. Following he economic logic o e enue maximisa ion, gambling companies con ol he isk o gambling ha m by ‘ esponsible gambling’ measu es (see e.g., Kingma 2015). Independen o he inal e ec i eness o hese measu es in p ac ice (c. ., Sulkunen e al., 2019), he once aken decision o esponsible gambling measu es will be he basis o u u e decisions in p e en ing gambling ha ms and exclude o he , maybe mo e e ec i e, ha m p e en ion measu es. Valida ing his claim emains an empi ical ques ion, bu a sys ems heo e ical app oach migh lead o o he implica ions on how o implemen gambling ha m p e en ion measu es in p ac ice, no only in e ms o shi ing ocus om e enue maximisa ion bu also in a pa h-b eaking manne ega ding decision p emises. O ganisa ions such as gambling companies a e he ins umen o a unc ionally di e en ia ed socie y o gene a e inequali ies (B aeckman, 2006), and hei decisions and he coo dina ion be ween hem can be he objec o sys em heo e ical analyses. Sys ems heo y as a me hodological p og amme in gambling esea ch In his inal sec ion, we will mo e on om applica ions o sys ems heo y as an analy ical ool o using i as a me hodological app oach. The me hodological alue in Luhmann’s hinking lies in i s ocus on communica ion a he han indi iduals, which a oids educing social phenomena o indi iduals and hei p e e ences. This pe spec i e s ands in con as o p edominan p ac ices in gambling esea ch and pa icula ly esea ch on p oblem gambling which ends o pu he playe cen e-s age by ocusing on he indi idual and hei choice o gamble (o no ). Fo ins ance, sc eening and diagnos ic ins umen s (e.g., SOGS, DIGS, DSM-V, ICD- 10) iden i y diso de ed gambling h ough cogni i e mal unc ions and ad e se consequences. One eason o he indi idualisa ion o (p oblem) gambling may be loca ed in disciplina y hie a chies and adi ions, bu also in me hodological indi idualism in ( unded) esea ch p og ammes ac oss disciplines. As we ha e seen, in Luhmann’s hinking, social sys ems consis o communica ion and educe en i onmen al complexi y and con ingencies. This s a emen can be in e p e ed no only as a heo y o socie y bu also as a me hodological p og amme o ask how he empi ical da a i sel cons uc s and limi s i s opic in o de o es ablish an o de in he esea ch p ocess. Resea ch da a is a esul o many kinds o educ ions o con ingencies (Nassehi & Saake, 2002). Fo ins ance, op ions gi en in su ey s udies a e p ede e mined, and in e iewees in quali a i e in e iews a e limi ed by esea ch expec a ions, in e iew ques ions and he si ua ion. In o he wo ds, he da a collec ion excludes and includes ce ain ac o s in o de o make i possible o alk abou – in ou case – gambling. Mo eo e , ins ead o ying o unde s and ( e s ehen) he meaning o he collec ed da a by deciphe ing an assumed unde lying o de , gambling esea ch in o med by sys em’s heo y s udies how o de comes o exis ence in he i s place (Nassehi & Saake, 2002). Consequen ly, sys ems- heo e ical esea ch does no con en i sel wi h a simple con ex ualiza ion o he da a bu ocuses on he ways he da a becomes meaning ul by di e se aming p ocesses. Ins ead o in e p e ing wha he esponden s migh mean, he leading ques ion is, how i is possible o communica e abou he opic in he i s place, and wha kind o amings make his possible? In o he wo ds, how do M. Ege e e al. / C i ical Gambling S udies, 1 (2020) 12-22 18 esponden s (o o he analysed documen s, media ex , e c.) manage o alk abou gambling i sel ? To g asp hese p ocesses in de ail, con ex and con ex u e (Vogd, 2011) a e analy ically sepa a ed. The con ex is conce ned wi h o example he o igin o he da a (such as he coun y o da a collec ion, p o ession o esponden s, e c.); he con ex u e is he socie al con ex o he con ex . Hence, o ocus on con ex u es, is o ask wha lies behind he c ea ion o he da a. Equipped wi h hese concep ual ools, a sys ems- heo e ical esea che can analyse di e se aming p ocesses a he same ime by mo ing be ween con ex s and con ex u es. The o ien a ion o ( ace) con ex u es in he esea ch p ocess connec s sys ems- heo e ical me hodology o a heo y o socie y, as con ex u es esemble socie al (sub) sys ems. Fo ins ance, he communica ion o he gambling sys em and he con inui y o his communica ion depends on he a angemen o connec able con ex u es. The iden i ica ion o such con ex u es, such as he medical (gambling diso de ), he economic (deb s), o he amily ( us ), he e o e cons i u es he main objec i e o sociological gambling esea ch in o med by sys ems heo y. This migh appea a a he simple and desc ip i e endea ou a i s bu can easily become mo e complica ed when ying o es ablish he whole ne wo k o polycon ex u ali ies. Such ne wo ks a e dependen on he obse e who eplaces any linea causali y assumed in ac o -based analy ical amewo ks (Vogd, 2011). The alidi y o obse a ions may be deba ed, bu obse a ions a e no a bi a y because some in e p e a ions can be clea ly iden i ied as alse (Esposi o, 2013). I migh no be possible, no e en plausible, o imagine all possible ways o educing en i onmen al con ingency bu we can look a how con ingency is educed in he da a in se e al ways. In quali a i e, o al and w i en da a, his can be accomplished by looking a he p og ession o sen ences and iden i ying which hemes and con ex u es ollow he p e ious ones (Nassehi & Saake, 2002). Hence o h, sys ems heo e ical hinking o e s also he possibili y o c i ically analyse unde lying logics, which a e no necessa ily ob ious o he in o man s hemsel es. The sys ems heo e ical me hodology can also be applied o and in o m quan i a i e esea ch. Fi s , simila ly o quali a i e s udies, sys ems heo y allows o a shi in ocus. Resea ch plans, ques ions and aims a e based on he in e es s o esea che s which in u n is hea ily in luenced by hei heo e ical backg ound and iew on he wo ld, hus he esea ch pa adigm (see e.g., Co be a, 2003; Kuhn, 1962). Sociologis s in luenced and in o med by unc ionalism migh o ins ance ask wha unc ion gambling se es in socie y. Fo ins ance, Je ey De e eux (1980 [1949]) amously a gued ha gambling was bene icial o socie ies as i helped elie e social ensions. Second, a sys ems heo e ical app oach can also in o m he cons uc ion o he employed s a is ical models. I we see gambling as a sys em and hence as an independen a iable his can be aken qui e li e ally in eg ession analysis: Ins ead o measu ing o ins ance he equency o expendi u es on gambling, a sys ems app oach analyses gambling as gambling- communica ion. Gambling is wha is meaning ul as gambling in con empo a y socie y. Consequen ly, mo e complex models in o med by sys ems heo y can be gene a ed. G an , Pe e son and Pe e son (2002) o example c ea ed a model based on six unc ional sys ems o a mode n socie y, including s a e a iables o in o ma ion. The s udy sough o unde s and he in e ac ion be ween na u al and human ac o s and i s e ec on en i onmen al ac ion. Simila models could be cons uc ed o enqui e abou gambling pa icipa ion in di e en ju isdic ions by conside ing he p ima y unc ional sys ems o hese socie ies. Discussion and conclusions Con empo a y sociological s udies ha e made some in e es ing ad ances in ecen gambling esea ch, including e hnog aphic app oaches, policy analyses, c i ical gambling s udies, and an h opological app oaches (e.g., Bed o d, Casey, & Flynn, 2018; Binde, 2005; Casey, 2008; Ege e & Ma ionneau, 2019; Ege e e al., 2018a; Falk & Mäenpää, 1999; Kingma, 2015; Oldman, 1974; Reiche z e al., 2010; Rei h & Dobbie, 2011; Schüll, 2012). Classical sociological heo is s ha e also aken up he example o gambling pa icula ly om he poin o iew o i a ionali y (Huizinga, 1938; Smi h, 1863 [1776]) o unc ionalism (Caillois, 1958; De e eux, 1980 [1949]). Ne e heless, he use o sociological heo y has emained ma ginal in gambling esea ch a la ge, and he ield has been highly domina ed by bo h heo e ical and me hodological indi idualism. Gambling s udies ha e no made much use o sociological ad ances, pa icula ly in he ield o s uc u al and cons uc i is analysis. Luhmann is no he i s social heo is o ake up he idea o sys ems. Fo Claude Lé i-S auss (1969), sys ems we e la en s uc u es based on dualis ic opposi ions such as na u e/cul u e o aw/cooked. Luhmann’s sys ems come close o Pie e Bou dieu’s no ion o ields, de ined as sphe es ha ha e speci ic p ope ies bu ha a e also connec ed o o he ields mo e closely han in Luhmann’s wo k (Vogd, 2011). Fu he mo e, Luhmann’s hinking is pa ially buil on he wo k o Talco Pa sons’ unde s anding o sys ems, bu Luhmann ejec s i s basic assump ions. Fi s , Luhmann does no ake he indi idual no human ac ion as a uni o as he basis o his heo y. Second, Luhmann also depa s om he mac o-sociological adi ion o seeking he no ma i e ( ounda ions o ) social o de cen al in Pa sons’ la e wo k. Fo Luhmann, he agedy o socie y lies in ha sys ems ollow hei own logic, no ancho ed o no ms and alues. The legi imacy o socie y (as sys ems) is he e o e no achie ed because people a e assumed o sha e he same alues. Ra he , sys ems adap cons an ly M. Ege e e al. / C i ical Gambling S udies, 1 (2020) 12-22 19 o changing en i onmen s wi hou a common elos o g ounding. In his ega d, Luhmann’s unde s anding o sys ems also di e s om ha o Jü gen Habe mas, o whom a li ewo ld exis s ou side o sys ems, al hough sys ems, and pa icula ly he ma ke sys em, a e inc easingly ’colonising’ i . Fo Luhmann, he en i onmen o sys ems is me ely made up o complexi y c ea ed by o he sys ems. Consequen ly, and despi e he abs ac one in Luhmann’s w i ings, we encou age eade s o app oach his heo y i s and o emos as a esea ch agenda. Ins ead o asking huge ques ions o ( he possibili ies o ) he o de o socie y as a whole à la Pa sons, sys ems heo y helps o g asp agile o de -gene a ing p ocesses as educ ions o complexi y; p ocesses, which seem o be mani es ed only locally bu a el h ough scales and connec o di e se sys ems when inspec ed h ough a sys ems- heo e ical lens. In his sense, Luhmann’s heo y bea s esemblance o ha o Foucaul , o whom powe was no a s uc u e bu in e wo en wi h changing and sub le discou ses and pu in o e ec locally (Foucaul , 1978). In he cu en s udy, we ha e iden i ied a leas h ee ways in which Luhmann’s wo k is o alue o gambling s udies. Fi s , Luhmann’s heo y o e s a wide po en ial o applica ion. In he cu en pape , we ha e de eloped i e possible analy ical o me hodological pe spec i es using Luhmann’s ideas, bu he e a e possibly many mo e. As we ha e discussed, he sys ems heo e ical app oach can be applied o s udy and unde s and highly di e ging opics in gambling esea ch, anging om he gambling expe ience o he egula ion and ope a ion o gambling, and me hodological conside a ions. The second ad an age in Luhmann’s hinking is he po en ial o a oid heo e ically pos ula ed asymme ies: No sys em is seen o domina e o e o he s, like he economy o Ma x. No is he socie y spli in o opposing sphe es, such as sys em and li ewo ld, on no ma i e g ounds as in Habe mas’s heo y o communica i e ac ion. Mo eo e , classical dicho omies, such as he one be ween ac o and s uc u e, can be a oided. Ins ead, sys ems heo y guides us o analyse he cons an chaining o communica ion om a le el g ound. A ecen deba e on inequali ies in gambling ocused on he unde lying easons o he g ow h o gambling globally and he exploi a ion o he poo (see e.g., Aba banel, 2017; Del abb o & King, 2017; Li ings one e al., 2018). The on lines o his deba e seem o un along disciplina y lines, o mo e b oadly posi i is psychology agains cons uc i is social science. Del abb o and King’s (2017) indi idual-cen ed pe spec i e sees ha o exploi a ion o consume s o occu , a s a egic and a ional en e p ise would be necessa y. Li ings one e al. (2018) a gue ins ead ha gambling is based on social s uc u es and he a See Sil as & Vi anen (2014) o de ails on he ole o objec s in sys ems heo y. economic logic o e enue maximisa ion, including ma ke compe i ion and spa ial dis ibu ion o demand ha p oduce social ou comes such as inequali y. Independen o he ques ion whe he such a ‘capi alis conspi acy’ exis s, o who migh be conspi ing (Aba banel, 2017), he issue can be unde s ood and analysed as an exp ession o sys emic mechanisms. While using widely he same li e a u e o subs an ia e hei poin s, he esea che s in he deba e connec he li e a u e o ‘ hei ’ sys emic discou se. The sys ems heo y exposes he p ocesses behind such pe spec i es conside ing he espec i e sys em o con ex u e. Fu he mo e, as a second le el obse e , sys ems heo y can also iden i y common g ound (i.e. s uc u al coupling and in e dependencies) be ween scien i ic app oaches, and hus acili a e mul idisciplina y esea ch in gambling. In a e y p ac ical manne , esea ch in o med by sys ems heo y can help a oid blaming speci ic g oups o pe sons. E en in compa ison o o he s uc u ally inclined sociological heo ies such as Michel Foucaul ’s go e nmen ali y heo y, sys ems heo y akes agen s ou o he equa ion, keeping discussion on he s uc u al a he han on he pe sonal le ela. The hi d way in which sys ems heo y can be bene icial o gambling s udies is i s ocus on sys ems ins ead o indi iduals. This can be mi o ed in gambling s udies by ocusing on gambling a he han gambling indi iduals. Exis ing heo ising o p oblem gambling has been mainly in o med by medical, psychological and epidemiological esea ch (Young, 2013) ha concep ualise and iden i y i using diagnos ic and sc eening ins umen s. Blaszczynski and Nowe (2002) ha e o ins ance desc ibed h ee dis inc pa hways o p oblem gambling. Al hough all h ee pa hways o igina e in ecological ac o s such as a ailabili y, he gambling en i onmen and con ex does no play a ole a he la e s ages in he model. Such me hodological indi idualism ansla es easily o iden i ying ypes o p oblem gamble s a he han ypes o p oblem gambling. While ypologies o p oblem gamble s and hei indi idual cha ac e is ics ha e impo ance o ea men pe spec i es, hey a e less use ul in e ms o p e en ion. P e en ion e o s need o accoun o ypes o gambling p oduc s, en i onmen s and supply ac o s, as well as hei in e ela ions o iden i y isky gambling ajec o ies. A sys ems heo y app oach can also o e come he p oblem gamble / non-p oblem gamble di ision: indi iduals may ha e phases o mo e o less p oblema ic gambling, making accep able gambling connec ed o beha iou s a he han indi iduals. Luhmann’s sys ems heo y may no be he panacea o social scien i ic gambling esea ch; i has i s limi a ions and weak spo s like any o he heo y. Luhmann’s ocus on complexi y limi s explana ions o s abili y and o de (Münch, 2004). The heo y o igins M. Ege e e al. / C i ical Gambling S udies, 1 (2020) 12-22 20 om a speci ic geog aphical and his o ic con ex (Ge many, ca. 1970s–90s) – i s applicabili y in ‘non- Wes e n cul u al’ con ex s migh be hus limi ed, o a leas need ho ough adjus men s. Sys ems heo y also ends o neglec powe hie a chies and sys emic legi imacy ou side he poli ical sys em. Fo example, he heo y can explain how doc o s ame he wo ld in hei medical sys em, bu i does no help in explaining why he logic o he medical sys em end o be s onge han ha o social wo k in gambling (e.g. Ege e & Alanko, 2015), o why he medical sys em is losing g ound o g owing manage ialism in hospi als (Vi anen, 2015b). In his pape , we ha e he e o e sugges ed Luhmann’s sys ems heo y, no o eplace exis ing gambling esea ch amewo ks, bu o complemen hem. This cu en pape has also been limi ed o heo e ical conside a ions and sugges ions, lea ing empi ical applica ions o u he s udies. Re e ences Aas ed, M. (2003). The Sociology o Gambling. Sp ing ield: Cha les C. Thomas. Aba banel, B. (2017). Commen a y on Del abb o & King’s (2017) ‘Gambling is no a capi alis conspi acy’. In e na ional Gambling S udies , 17 (2), 340-342. Adams, P. (2008). Gambling, eedom and democ acy . New Yo k: Rou ledge. Aue , M., Reies ad, S. H., & G i i hs, M. D. (2020). Global limi se ing as a esponsible gambling ool: Wha do playe s hink? In e na ional Jou nal o Men al Heal h and Addic ion, 18 , 14-26. Beck, U. (1986). Die Risikogesellscha . Au dem Weg in eine ande e Mode ne . [The Risk Socie y. On he way in o a new mode ni y]. F ank u /M: Suh kamp. Bed o d, K., Casey, D., & Flynn, A. (2018). Special Volume. Keeping Chance in I s Place: The Socio-Legal Regula ion o Gambling. Jou nal o Law and Social Policy, 30 , 1-10. Be ei e , D. & S o , S. (2018). Gambling Policies and Law in Aus ia. In Ege e , M., Ma ionneau, V. & Nikkinen, J. (Eds). Gambling Policies in Eu opean Wel a e S a es – Cu en Challenges and Fu u e P ospec s . (pp. 59-82). London: Palg a e McMillan. Binde, P. (2005). Gambling ac oss cul u es: Mapping wo ldwide occu ence and lea ning om e hnog aphic compa ison. In e na ional Gambling S udies, 5 (1), 1-27. Bje g, O. (2011). Poke : The pa ody o capi alism . Ann A bo : Uni e si y o Michigan P ess. Blaszczynski, A., & Nowe , L. (2002). A pa hways model o p oblem and pa hological gambling. Addic ion, 97 , 487-499. Bo ch, A. (2013). Households’ images o gambling. Re ie ed om h ps://helda.helsinki. i/handle/10138/41987 Bo ch, C. (2011). Niklas Luhmann . Oxon: Rou ledge. Bo ell, J. (2008). The ‘Public Accoun abili y App oach’: sugges ions o a amewo k o cha ac e ise, compa e, in o m and e alua e gambling egula ion. In e na ional Jou nal o Men al Heal h and Addic ion , 6 (2), 265-281. B aeckman, A. (2006). Niklas Luhmann’s sys ems heo e ical edesc ip ion o he inclusion/exclusion deba e . Philosophy & Social C i icism , 32(1), 65–88. Caillois, R. (1958). Les jeux e les hommes: Le masque e le e ige . [Man, Play, and Games]. Pa is: Gallima d. Casey, E. (2008). Women, pleasu e and he gambling expe ience . London: Rou ledge. Chambe s, K. (2011). Gambling o P o i : Lo e ies, Gaming Machines, and Casinos in C oss-na ional Focus. To on o: Uni e si y o To on o P ess. Co be a, P. (2003). Pa adigms o Social Resea ch . London, UK: Sage. Cosg a e, J. (2006). Edi o ’s in oduc ion: Gambling, isk, and la e capi alism. J. Cosg a e (Ed.) The Sociology o Risk and Gambling Reade . (pp. 1-24). New Yo k: Rou ledge. Del abb o, P., & King, D. (2017). Gambling is no a capi alis conspi acy: a c i ical commen a y o li e a u e on he ‘indus y s a e gambling complex’. In e na ional Gambling S udies , 17 (2), 317-331. Deman , J., & Ra n, S. (2013). Communica ing us be ween pa en s and hei child en: A case s udy o adolescen s’ alcohol use in Denma k. Jou nal o Adolescen Resea ch , 28 (3), 325-347. De e eux, E. (1980 [1949]). Gambling and he Social S uc u e: A sociological s udy o lo e ies and ho se acing in con empo a y Ame ica . New Yo k: A no P ess. D ews, N., & Wuke ich, M. (2019). Ambi alenzen des Glücksspiels aus soziologische Pe spek i e. [Ambi alences o gambling om a sociological pe spec i e]. Wöh , A. & Wuke ich, M. (Eds.) Mul idisziplinä e Be ach ung des ielschich igen Phänomens Glücksspiel (pp. 25-43). Wiesbaden: Sp inge VS. Ege e , M. & Alanko, A. (2015). P oblem gambling and he non- medical addic ion model: Finnish gene al p ac i ione s’ and social wo ke s’ pe cep ions. Sosiologia, 52 (4), 364-380. Ege e , M., & Ma ionneau, V. (2019). Cul u es and spaces o con enience gambling. No dic S udies on Alcohol and D ugs, 36 (2), 125-139. Ege e , M., Nikkinen, J., & Nikkinen, J. (2018a). Gambling policies in Eu opean wel a e s a es. Cu en challenges and u u e p ospec s . Cham: Palg a e Macmillan. Ege e , M., Kankainen, V. & Hellman, M. (2018b). Comp omising he public good? Ci il socie y as bene icia y o gambling e enue. Jou nal o Ci il Socie y, (14) 3, 207-22. Elias, N., & Dunning, E. (1986). Leisu e in he spa e- ime spec um. Elias, N. & Dunning, E. (Eds.), Ques o exci emen . Spo and leisu e in he ci ilizing p ocess (pp. 91-125). Ox o d: Blackwell. Esposi o, E. (2010). Die Zukun de Fu u es. Die Zei des Geldes in Finanzwel und Gesellscha . [The u u e o u u es. The ime o money in Financing and Socie y]. Heidelbe g: Ca l-Aue . Esposi o, E. (2013). Limi s o In e p e a ion, Closu e o Communica ion. Umbe o Eco and Niklas Luhmann Obse ing Tex s. la Cou , A. & Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A. (Eds.), Luhmann Obse ed . (171-184) London: Palg a e. Falk, P., & Mäenpää, P. (1999). Hi ing he jackpo : Li es o lo e y millionai es . Ox o d: Be g. Fe en zy, P., & Tu ne , N. (2013). A his o y o p oblem gambling: Tempe ance, subs ance abuse, medicine, and me apho s . New Yo k: Sp inge . Foucaul , M. (1978). The His o y o Sexuali y. Volume I: An In oduc ion . Pan heon Books: New Yo k. Giddens, A. (2006). Fa e, isk and secu i y. In J. Cosg a e (Ed.), The sociology o isk and gambling eade (pp. 29-59). New Yo k: Rou ledge. Gö ke, A., & Scholl, A. (2006). Niklas Luhmann's heo y o social sys ems and jou nalism esea ch. Jou nalism s udies , 7 (4), 644-655. G an , W. E., Pe e son, T. R., & Pe e son, M. J. (2002). Quan i a i e modeling o coupled na u al/human sys ems: Simula ion o socie al cons ain s on en i onmen al ac ion d awing on Luhmann's social heo y. Ecological Modelling, 158 , 143-165. Heiskanen, M. (2017). P oblem gamble s and money. Unbalanced budge s and inancial eco e . Helsinki: Publica ions o he Facul y o Social Sciences. Huizinga, J. (1938). Homo Ludens: Essai su la onc ion sociale du jeu . [Homo Ludens: A S udy o he Play-Elemen in Cul u e]. Pa is: Gallima d. Joas, H., & Knöbl, W. (2009). Social heo y: wen y in oduc o y lec u es . Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. Kankainen, V. & Hellman, M. (in p ess). Neu alizing and a ionalizing he go e ning o gambling p o i s in Finland . Pape p esen ed a he 12 h SNSUS Con e ence, Tampe e, June 2019. Kingma, S. (2004). Gambling and he Risk Socie y: The Libe alisa ion and Legi ima ion C isis o Gambling in he Ne he lands . In e na ional Gambling S udies , 4(1), 47-67. Kingma, S. F. (2015). Pa adoxes o isk managemen . Social esponsibili y and sel -exclusion in Du ch casinos . Cul u e and O ganiza ion , 21(1), 1-22. Kuhn, T. (1962). The S uc u e o Scien i ic Re olu ions . Chicago: Uni e si y o Chicago P ess. Lemke, T. (2019). Foucaul 's Analysis o Mode n Go e nmen ali y: A C i ique o Poli ical Reason. London: Ve so.