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!