Vanity, Envy and Competition Part 5

This is the final segment in my essay on Vanity, Competition and Envy.  Previously we have explored the tight relationship between our cultivated need for praise, our fragile egos, the endless oscillation between insecurity and vanity, and the envy that results or feeds this dynamic.

In this segment we will look at competition.  Praise, vanity, envy, insecurity – they all have at their core either an explicit or implicit comparison between ourselves and other human beings.  And that comparison is nurtured or confirmed through competition.

Of course there are times when we are praised for having done well in comparison to our own capabilities or previous accomplishments, but I would argue that these are the exception rather than the norm.  Almost every aspect of our culture and society is based on competition and there appears to be a basic assumption that the competitive spirit or drive is a fundamental and even desirable element of human nature.  Moreover, competition is seen in a generally positive light as the primary motivation for personal achievement, character development and the general progress of civilization.

But is this really true?  Is competition a positive force in our world?  Is it a necessary one?  When I think of competition I remember a Peanuts cartoon I saw long ago.  Linus is telling Charlie Brown about a football game he just saw on TV.  He describes in vivid detail over several panels how his team snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in the final seconds of the game.  He can scarcely contain his joy.  On the last panel, Charlie Brown, looking pensive as always, responds ‘How did the other team feel?’

The fact is that competition creates winners and losers.  In many cases, the winning and losing have only psychological impact, though clearly this impact should not be trivialized.  But in other cases, losing has more dramatic consequences – the failure of a business, the loss of prestige or reputation or self-confidence. 

There are numerous platitudes about the benefits of failure and losing.  Our culture accepts as orthodoxy that the struggle of life requires competition and that it is important to experience both winning and losing to develop character and resilience.  Indeed, there are many contemptuous references these days to a perceived tendency to make everyone a ‘winner’ – trophies or participation medals for every child in a sport and grade inflation at schools come to mind.

Losing and failure are declared to be prerequisites for later business success by every entrepreneur and executive on the motivational speaking circuit.  The idea that people learn from mistakes does indeed seem to be a truism.  But is a competitive environment required to create the conditions for the crucible of success and failure?  Could cooperation be just as effective for development of character and capability, but far less damaging than competition?

Much of my life has been characterized by competition – in school, in sports and in business.  The moments of winning, of being acclaimed as ‘better’ than my competitors, were stimulating, but they were also unsettling, creating a separation between me and my competitors that was at turns awkward and alienating.

A competitive instinct is viewed as a favorable character trait, as in ‘that person is a real competitor’, or ‘he/she has a real competitive drive’!  But how is this competitive spirit different from a basic energetic trait?  What we are really saying about a person is that they will work hard, overcome obstacles and endure heartache, pain and fatigue (and even failures or setbacks) to succeed.  Does that character trait have to be defined in terms of beating someone else at something or proving someone is better than someone else?  Aren't the characteristics commonly associated with a ‘competitor’ – work ethic, resilience, energy, passion – valuable and commendable qualities in any endeavor, and particularly well suited for working cooperatively?

Would focusing human energy more on cooperation rather than competition be a laudable goal of 21^st century society?  Can human passion be developed to as high a level when there is a common goal rather a prize that can only be defined or won by beating or diminishing another? 

Cooperation would not imply an easy path with no frustration or disappointments.  All human activity is subject to the vicissitudes of success and failure, of agony and ecstasy.  The difference is where the motivation lies – in achievement for the sake of a group and one’s own self-fulfillment rather than proving oneself better than others.

Competition was a necessary by-product of our quest for survival and progress in the first fifty thousand years of our evolution.  But perhaps cooperation is the key to the human race surviving the next few millennia!

21st Century Fascism

Donald Trump continues to defy all expectations.  His surprising popularity has been analyzed every possible way, and it seems to rise in almost inverse proportion to the condemnation he receives from every quarter.

The question for me is whether Trump is truly the neo-fascist that he appears to be, or whether he is masquerading as one in a cynical but clever ploy to gain the nomination.  He has been compared with Il Duce (Benito Mussolini of the ‘glory’ days of the short-lived Italian empire in the 1930s) because of his huge ego and his smug proclamations.  Indeed, the continuous smirk on his face and his puffed-up demeanor are amazingly similar to those of Il Duce.

Calling Trump a fascist is not really an exaggeration.  Fascism has the following characteristics:  a fanatical demagogue as a leader; a maniacal embrace of nationalism; a set of enemies that are blamed for the current perceived downfall of the state (e.g. immigrants, Muslims, blacks, media, political correctness, liberals, tax laws); a belief that a strong leader can ‘solve’ economic problems through central control; a belief that a nation can recover its past glories by adopting an aggressive, unyielding position on global affairs; a strategy of economic growth by large infrastructure projects and military build-up.

It is difficult to discern what Trump’s platform and plans are, but his appeal to ‘angry’ Americans seems to parallel the classic fascist pattern.  The big difference between Trump’s rise and those of Hitler and Mussolini is that the economic conditions are far less dismal today than the late 1920’s.

The ‘anger’ that is accepted as a given in today’s political environment is somewhat of a strange phenomenon.  Clearly our political process is frustratingly dysfunctional.  However, the country is not in any great economic or social distress when compared to the rest of the world.  So why the almost palpable anger?

For the average white American, there are certainly unsettling trends – the increasing diversity of our society, the changing sexual and gender mores, the decrease in traditional religious affiliation, the erosion of American influence in world affairs. 

But these trends and circumstances do not really impact people in a very direct way.  The everyday of our lives is no worse for these changes.  Our economy, though not robust, is still functioning fairly well and indeed performs better than that of almost any other nation on earth.  We still have all of the freedoms, opportunities and pleasures that make the U.S. an incredible place for most of its citizens.  Very few of the people who are so angry are in any type of distress, other than psychic.

I believe the anger is a manufactured entity, a Frankenstein created by right-wing media, bloggers and politicians that is now out of control and about to destroy its master, the Republican Party. Let’s hope and pray it doesn’t also destroy the whole country.