Jonathan Ward wrote:
> so you see my point. wherever you look at the moment, nearly
> everything can be seen to be in crises.
I got the below article via email so no url, but to me it goes a long
way in explaining the source of the problem.
It should be emphasized, however, that crediting the theory of
'survival of the fittest' to Darwin is wrong. That and "social
Darwinism" came from Herbert Spencer (originally called Spencerism).
Both have been thoroughly discredited. The terms infer that Spencer was
a scientist like Darwin, when in actual fact he was nothing of the
sort. Worse, he mis-used the term "survival of the fittest". Do cows
eat/kill cows? Do whales eat/kill whales? Do butterflies eat/kill
butterflies? No. But for Spencer it was 'natural' for human to enslave
/ kill humans. The depth of the lies in society today is truly
profound. No wonder we are so screwed up.
http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/paper84.doc
http://college.hmco.com/history/west/resources/students/primary/
survival.htm
http://mmcconeghy.com/students/supsocialdarwinism.html
http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture06.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spencer/
http://www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/spencer/spencer.html
http://condor.depaul.edu/~gmichel/extra/SocDar.htm
Well - it's endless, really, but I just love this one.
http://human-nature.com/rmyoung/papers/paper84.doc
"Huxley said that Spencer's idea of a tragedy was a deduction slain by
a fact."
"The second characteristic that led to his writing in extenso, is that
like so many of his contemporaries, he suffered gravely from
debilitating neurotic symptoms. He had a breakdown from over work while
writing The Principles of Psychology in 1855 and collapses recurred. He
was left with a strange sensation in the head which he called 'the
mischief', along with palpitations and insomnia. Among the consequent
eccentricities was the use of earplugs which he inserted to avoid
over-excitement. It was noted that these times included occasions when
he began to lose out in an argument."
Walt
______________________________
No contest: the case against competition
by George Catlin
From the March 1998 issue of Share International
www.share-international.org
A discussion of Alfie Kohn's book, in which research debunks the myths
perpetuating the 'sacred cow' of competition.
"We need competition in order to survive."
"Life is boring without competition."
"It is competition that gives us meaning in life."
These words written by American college students capture a sentiment
that runs through the heart of the USA and appears to be spreading
throughout the world. To these students, competition is not simply
something one does, it is the very essence of existence. When asked to
imagine a world without competition, they can foresee only rising
prices, declining productivity and a general collapse of the moral
order. Some truly believe we would cease to exist were it not for
competition.
Alfie Kohn, author of No contest: the case against competition,
disagrees completely. He argues that competition is essentially
detrimental to every important aspect of human experience; our
relationships, self-esteem, enjoyment of leisure, and even productivity
would all be improved if we were to break out of the pattern of
relentless competition. Far from being idealistic speculation, his
position is anchored in hundreds of research studies and careful
analysis of the primary domains of competitive interaction. For those
who see themselves assisting in a transition to a less competitive
world, Kohn's book will be an invaluable resource.
Beating others
Kohn defines competition as any situation where one person's success is
dependent upon another's failure. Put another way, in competition two
or more parties are pursuing a goal that cannot be attained by all. He
calls this 'mutually exclusive goal attainment' (MEGA).
Kohn goes on to define two distinct types of competition. In
'structural competition' MEGA is an explicit, defining element in the
nature of the interaction. For instance in a game of tennis there can
be only one winner. The same is true of beauty contests, presidential
elections, and wars. Everyone knows they are out to beat the others
though the rules of engagement may vary considerably between events.
Intentional competition' is a state of mind, an individual's
competitiveness or his proclivity for besting others. Anyone can go to
a party determined to establish him or herself as the most intelligent,
the most attractive, etc. Similarly, in school, the work place, and on
teams people can try to beat others whether or not anyone is formally
keeping score and declaring winners and losers.
One place where competition cannot exist, according to Kohn, is within
oneself. Such striving to better one's own standing is an individual,
not interactive matter; it does not involve MEGA. Of course some people
cannot imagine pushing themselves without the possibility of 'winning'
or the threat of 'losing', but this by no means implies that all
motivation is dependent upon competitive frameworks. Throughout history
countless large and small accomplishments have been achieved simply out
of an individual's desire to do better without any thought of beating
others. Such striving for mastery cannot be confused with competition.
Four myths
Kohn argues that the 'sacred cow' of competition stands on four
mythological legs. The first of these is that competition is an innate
fact of life. This myth has its basis in a fundamental misunderstanding
of Darwin's theory of natural selection. It is wrongly supposed that
the phrase 'survival of the fittest' implies an eternal struggle among
members of the species from which only the strongest (that is, most
competitive) emerge victorious.
Actually fitness in the biological sense refers only to the capacity to
produce surviving offspring who in turn live to reproduce. When
'survival of the fittest' is understood in this light, it becomes clear
that the tendency to cooperate contributes far more to fitness than any
competitive inclination. Raising offspring for early animal-humanity
was a difficult undertaking, and only those who could work effectively
with others were likely to succeed. On the other hand, endangering
one's own life as well as the lives of one's offspring through direct
physical competition was a risky strategy at best, and those who were
genetically predisposed in that direction are thought to have died off
millions of years ago. Thus, if we have inherited any predisposition
for intra-species behavior, it is toward cooperation. Indeed
cooperation is the pervasive, if unnoticed, background of human affairs
against which we see competition in such stark relief.
If it is not our 'nature' to compete, then 'nurture', or our learning
history, must be responsible for its pervasive presence. Here Kohn
quotes the late anthropologist Jules Henry who tells a story of an
episode repeated daily in classrooms throughout the world. Boris is
unable to solve an arithmetic problem. The teacher asks him to think
harder while the rest of the class responds with a forest of waving
hands and much sighing. Finally Peggy is called upon and proudly
delivers the correct solution. "Thus Boris' failure has made it
possible for Peggy to succeed; his depression is the price of her
exhilaration; his misery the occasion of her rejoicing ... To a Zuni,
Hopi, or Dakota Indian, Peggy's performance would seem cruel beyond
belief."
This brief anecdote illustrates two important points. First, if such an
event would not occur in all cultures, the human nature argument is
considerably weakened. No behavior is understood to be innate or
inevitable if some cultures simply do not perform it. Second, the story
shows how within Western culture we teach children to compete without
even trying. Peggy and Boris have both learned 'the rules of the game'
in a way that far surpasses any lesson one could consciously create. No
amount of instruction to 'be nice' will ever outweigh experiences such
as this. The real lesson learned is to win in socially acceptable ways
with minimal acknowledgement of the joy and pain involved. We teach
this every day.
To those who would argue that such lessons build character, Kohn
replies that this is the second myth of competition: It makes us better
people. Kohn's thesis is that "we compete to overcome fundamental
doubts about our capabilities and, finally, to compensate for low
self-esteem." We want to win because we fear we are 'losers'. Eliminate
this comparative, competitive framework of evaluation, and the need to
compete (and win) disappears. As Kohn says: "The real alternative to
being number one is not being number two but being psychologically free
enough to dispense with rankings all together."
Research evidence nicely supports Kohn's thesis that genuine
self-esteem is best built outside of competitive frameworks. From a
review of 17 separate studies, David and Roger Johnson conclude:
"cooperative learning situations, compared to competitive and
individualistic situations, promote higher levels of self-esteem and
healthier processes for deriving conclusions about one's self-worth."
The same essential finding has been replicated in studies of
competitive versus non-competitive summer camps, competitive and
non-competitive grading systems, and cross-cultural research.
The reasons for such outcomes are none too mysterious. Most obviously,
in most competitions most participants lose. But perhaps more
importantly, in cooperative situations tremendous gain is derived from
sharing one's skills in a helpful way with others. Relationships of
trust and appreciation surely do more for one's sense of well-being
than the constant struggle to beat others.
Pleasure and productivity
The last two myths about the advantages of competition are perhaps the
most dearly held. The first is that competition is fun, and the second
is that competitive frameworks make for the highest levels of
productivity. Once again Kohn attacks these popular beliefs with a
combination of insight and research evidence.
Kohn begins his examination of competitive games by defining 'play':
something that is all about process, where outcomes matter not at all.
"The master aphorist G.K. Chesterton perfectly captured the spirit of
play when he said: 'If a thing is worth doing at all, it is worth doing
badly.' "Obviously this notion of play is directly opposed to the
spirit of sports today. We 'play to win' -- without the slightest
sense of the contradiction inherent in the phrase.
The fixation of American children on winning, or at least preventing
anyone else from winning, is demonstrated by cross-cultural research
with a simple game. In the game two children sit on opposite sides of a
checker board-like playing surface. A marker is placed on the middle
square and the children are told that they will take turns moving the
marker one square at a time for a total of 20 moves. If a child gets
the marker to his side of the board, he will receive a prize. Then the
game will be played again (four times total), and the other child will
go first.
Among four- and five-year-olds, Anglo-American and Mexican-American
children almost universally help one another take turns in winning.
That is, the child who goes second moves the marker in the direction of
the other child's goal. Virtually every game ends with one child
getting a prize. However, among seven-to-nine-year-olds, the pattern
changes completely. Both Anglo-American and Mexican-American children
prevent anyone from winning 50 to 80 per cent of the time. Only Mexican
seven-to-nine-year-olds with little or no contact with American culture
manage to cooperate and earn prizes in a majority of the games.
The obvious futility of wasting one's energy preventing another from
winning provides the starting point for Kohn's critique of
competition's contribution to productivity. "Good competitors" don't
see themselves as wasting energy in thinking about another's
performance, but considerable research evidence suggests that they may
be.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s a team of researchers at the
University of Texas set out to identify the personality characteristics
that correlated with the highest levels of professional performance.
They reasoned that striving for mastery, a positive attitude toward
work, and competitiveness would all correlate positively with
achievement. When the first study was run with Ph.D. scientists
(achievement measured by how often their published papers were cited)
the results were surprising. High levels of mastery and work
orientation were found among the highest achievers, but these top
achievers showed low levels of competitiveness. To test the result,
many more studies were conducted, each time using a different sample of
subjects (businessmen, college students, airline reservation agents,
and grade school students), and each time the same result was found.
Competitiveness consistently correlated negatively with achievement.
That is, those high in achievement were low in competitiveness.
But beyond the analysis of individual differences, a more important
issue concerns whether competitive or cooperative structures draw out
the best work from those within them. Here again the research evidence
runs contrary to popular assumptions. Kohn cites one review of 122
studies on the question: "Sixty-five studies found that cooperation
promotes higher achievement than competition, eight found the reverse,
and 36 found no statistically significant difference." Equally
fascinating, in study after study of reward structures, it has been
found that the best results are obtained when all team members are
rewarded equally for their work.
In sum, to change the competitive nature of society will require a
major step in consciousness. It is one thing to say "I don't like
competition," and it is quite another to root out its origins within
the psyche and to change our structures of work and play. If these
changes are to constitute the foundation of the new age, Kohn's book
could be a tremendously useful tool in the work ahead. It provides a
clear mirror within which to see unchallenged popular assumptions about
life. It invites the reader to build a new society in thought and deed.
|
