This page discusses different approaches to cooperation and competition in community activity.
The most coherent summary of this evidence was provided by Alfie Kohn in the book No Contest: the Case Against Competition. Since it was first published to high acclaim, in 1986, nobody has responded with any counter-argument to Kohn’s comprehensive work, so it remains a definitive critique of competition in western society.
One definition of the word “competition” draws attention to the etymology of the word:
As an attempt to defend competition in sport, the academic and coach David Light Shields defines a separation between ‘True competition’ [1] and ‘de-competition’ [2][3]. He claims that “The basic metaphor for decompetition is a battle or war”. In contrast true competition should be viewed as a cooperative activity:
The suggestion that competition can be viewed as a form of cooperation may seem like sophistry. How can people behave as partners in a situation where they strive to attain a mutually exclusive goal? In answer to this, David argues that true competition is primarily concerned with the process itself and not the outcome:
In true competition, David justifies the antagonism between players on the grounds that it is a necessary part of a ‘worthwhile process’. An awareness of the process will give the players a desire for fairness:
This raises a the question of whether the competitive process is worthwhile. David recognises the evidence that “Contrary to popular belief, competition doesn’t lead to improved performance or production.” So, the rationale for promoting competition includes: “development and display of mastery and excellence, together with the experience of that host of emotions that come with strenuous play, emotions such as joy, exhilaration, excitement, and hope.” David mentions dramatically the “intensity, focus, determination, and drive” of the competitors.
All of these arguments seem best confined to the realm of sport, and David suggests that sporting competitions should be “set apart” from everyday life in a temporary sphere, with clear spatial and temporal boundaries. If we had a cooperative social environment, David suggests that true competition could be sustained over rivalry in sports. Competitors could be motivated by a “love of the game” and a desire to achieve excellence. Players could focus on enjoying the process rather than emphasising the outcome.
The idea that competition and cooperation are broadly complementary is not supported by the evidence. Alfie Kohn shows that competition canabalizes cooperation – forcing cooperative participants to compete. Light-Shields recognises the challenge of sustaining true competition in the face of decompetition.
Taking a radical standpoint, Alfie Kohn dismisses sport altogether as a cynical means of building individual character to serve the dominant members of our current society and economic system. Alfie argues, at length, that sport is drained of playfulness and his arguments are convincing, but not constructive. Sport is a peculiarly popular phenomenon that cannot be ignored, so David’s prescription to recognise a distinction between competition and rivalry seems pragmatic. As he says:
Great article! I’d like to read “No Contest” now, and have added it to my wishlist and Amazon shopping cart.
At the FederationOfDamanhur, I heard two messages:
From what I saw there, both are true.
They emphasize both cooperation and competition.
The reason I think Damanhurian experience is particularly noteworthy, is because they (A) evidence high ideals, and (B) believe very strongly in putting ideas into practice, and testing them.
From my own first-hand experience, I’ve seen how competing with Amber & Sakura at board games has driven interest in the board game, and helped us all get better.
That said, there are games like Arkam Horror, which (I understand) is cooperative, and people play just as much – so, perhaps there is less evidence than it would seem to be the case to be.
I look forward to thinking about it all some more..!
I strongly agree with the basic ethic, though, – of competing for a positive end, otherwise, not competing at all. When the basic trust is destroyed, I cease to see a public mandate in it.
Lion, how do the Damanhurians practice their fierce competition? Do they ever use league tables, exclusive prizes or awards? Kohn speaks out strongly against these things.
The target of his criticism is "...the essence of the concept: mutually exclusive goal attainment (MEGA). One person succeeds only if another does not."
Hmm, … In many ways.
Have you ever worked with artists? You see a competitive spirit between them.
The Damanhurian government is made of three bodies, one of which is called “Game of Life.” Part of the purpose of Game of Life, to my understanding, is to reflect social tensions, new ideas and insights, and so on, in the form of games. Some of the competitions they have had have been full scale paint-ball battles; Others have been explicit art competitions, between teams, (the “Battle of the Arts,” 1986,) for some honor (a mutually exclusive goal attainment,) much is just person to person. I do get the sense that important decisions have been made by way of competition; My analogy is like using arm wrestling as a method to determine state law – there is consequence to challenge.
From my visit, it appeared to me that it is common for Damanhurians to make pacts on the order of, “You can do 2? Then I will do 3.” It can be very hard to psyche ones-self up to do some work, even if you understand clearly that it is very important, so Damanhurians work consciously to cultivate an atmosphere that is conducive to work, that attracts work.
I remember when I was at Cornucopia, and we were pouring concrete; One of the women of the nucleo was wearing jeans, rolled up her sleeves, and made an aggressive and exciting display of cheer as she shoveled cement and gravel into the mixer, and carted and poured with us - I found it very inspiring, because in so many places, I see women allowed to do comfortable light indoor work, and hard sweaty work is left for men. Her spirit leveled out after, say, 20-30 minutes, but we laughed and smiled and hurried the cement into the room, it had a good effect on the mood and the readiness. (Cornucopia was/is a newer nucleo, dedicated to hospitality as its theme, and we were filling out some of the rooms that were not yet complete.)
Here’s a section from “Damanhur: The Story of the Extraordinary Italian Artistic and Spiritual Community,” by Jeff Merrifield; It cites commentary that was originally on the Damanhur website:
…
It goes on for several pages describing the conflict, the rules, the war, cheating, and so on.
Near the end of the section, it describes the surrender of the Lattanti.
(The part about “pants” is a reference to – there was a part of the rules that teams had to pass complete lists of articles to the judges. The Lattanti had forgotten to list undergarments. Fortunately, they did list multiple layers of clothing, (it was snowing,) so it didn’t make much a difference, but it bothered them.)
James Merrifeld then records:
…
So, competition at Damanhur is many things.
I’m intrigued about that Menhir building. I like how it redirects the competition into cooperation smoothly, without leaving any party “hanging in the air”, with their build-up energy and emotions threatening with overflowing and being used for revenge. Instead, the energy is redirected into useful, cooperative endeavor. I bet that with the battle of arts, the “losing” works were not discarded either, but instead integrated into a common work somehow.
I think you’re right; Everyone’s artworks are connected at Damanhur.
