self rule vs mob rule, social games and how we play them

I don't like organized sports. I think they are a waste of time, a distraction, a smokescreen, whathaveyou. But at the same time they play a powerful part in the psyche of Pittsburgh right now, and offer up an illustration of what's wrong with society at whole, and how people act in mob situations. As someone whose interested in how people organize themselves and reclaim their own power, I decided that studying the absurdity of Steelers mania is worthwhile from a sociological perspective. Look at the WTO protests in Seattle several years ago, how a bunch of young dispirited anarchists managed to create a national stir over such a fuzzy political issue through exploiting the crowd situation of a political rally. All it took was one person throwing a brick through a Starbucks' window to slingshot the whole issue into the national spotlight. Granted, the "revolution" has gone back underground since then, but the general population now has a better idea of what the WTO is and what's wrong with our current economic position.

Now we have a similar situation here where whatever the outcome of the Superbowl, there will most likely be rioting in Pittsburgh, and potentially in other cities across the United States. Now, I don't particularly think ochlocracy (rule by the mob) is a particularly useful form of governance, but mob situations offer up opportunities for more to happen, for the people to feel that they can take some amount of power back into their lives and wield it for a change instead of having it wielded over them. Of course, it would be a shame to see wanton violence erupt over something as silly as a football game, and as much as I dislike the Southside, seeing it burn would be mostly embarrassing for someone like myself who would like to see my revolts actually revolt against something. But even still, I am curious about this situation, because it would be an example of people coming together and finding power in each other throwing all the rules out the window, and potentially making there own.

In a previous comment I tried to make a distinction about that word "rule" because it means many different things. In a political sense it is to hold power over someone else. In a game/ social setting it means the guidelines or mores by which people consent to interact. As an anarchist I am opposed to ruling in the sense of exerting power over another, and am opposed to the "rules of the game" only so much as they are used by those in power to continue their rule over others. But like any ideology this is a gray area, to some degree rules, or set guidelines for interaction, are still necessary (in a society in which people do not hold themselves ultimately responsible for the affects of their actions and respectful of those affects on other people). We do not live in a utopia currently, there are still people who will try and get away with whatever they can to the detriment of others. The system of stoplights for instance is a set of rules whereby pedestrians can still cross the street safely and accidents not occur. Without these we could have pure chaos and mob rule, because the majority of people are trying to get where they're going as fast as fucking possible without a shit who they might hit. Yes, I know there are procedures for if stoplights go out, but these are also socially sanctioned rules. In the event of a major blackout would they be followed? Most likely the law will step in and establish order and we won't be given a chance to find out if people can govern themselves.

There is a third definition of the phrase "to rule" coming from the modern street vernacular which defines ruling as a). playing the game well, ie. being able to utilize the current set of rules to win (which doesn't necessarily mean winning over someone else, the best games to play are the ones where we all win). and b). to create one's own set of rules or game entirely, and then win by playing that. In relation to organized sports, the only rules being played are those set up for the game itself and the socio-political rules for how the spectators should behave towards the game and each other, as a vicarious past-time with no other social repercussions. However, in the event of rioting or other mob situations, those rules are discarded and a situation occurs in which anything might happen. Granted without a sense of collective direction, or some force stepping in to rule the situation one way or the other, the best that can be hoped for is a short lived chaos with a modicum of violence and property damage. What I'm interested in is how this can be utilized for some sort of greater good. Organized sports is one of the few things that can get large amounts of people riled up and onto the streets. War holds nothing on football here anymore, the Superbowl could be the next WTO. Regardless what happens, it may offer up some unique insights in how people choose to rule themselves and how new rules and games are created when the old ones don't apply. Perhaps somewhere in there is hints at a game we can all play to win.