This page discusses different approaches to cooperation and competition in community activity.

The case against competition

“Overwhelming evidence from psychological studies suggests that cooperative activities produce more open communication, sharing, trust, friendship, and even enhanced performance than competitive activities do. These differences were found in laboratory and field settings, as well as in a variety of experimental games.” – Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology 4ed, p122, Weinberg and Gould.

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.

Treating competition as a subset of cooperation

One definition of the word “competition” draws attention to the etymology of the word:

Competition derives from the Latin com- “with” + operari “to work”, and Cooperation is from com- “together” + petere “to strive, seek”

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:

“Competition reflects a metaphor of partnership. By this metaphor, each competitor is viewed as an enabler (in the positive sense) … There is a synergy that results from the mutual challenge that each competitor provides to the other; this synergy enables each competitor to reach new heights of excellence and mastery that could not be achieved in isolation. Because achieving my own best performance is contingent on the availability of a worthy challenge, I hope that my competitor is performing at her or his best. Viewed in this light, competition is really a subset of cooperation.”

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:

“Yes, competitors want to win. They may well want to win as much as the decompetitor. But the primary focus is still on the process – on the striving, on the playing …”

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:

“For competitors, winning and losing are acceptable because they enable a worthwhile process to take place. … For true competitors, one cannot win without winning fairly; for decompetitors, the concluding scoreboard is the only arbiter”

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.

Competition canabalizes cooperation

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:

“You can’t stop a stampeding elephant with a fly-swatter, and we are not going to change the culture of sports by asking people to sign codes of conduct, making public service announcements, … I think we need to recognize how deeply counter-cultural the effort to restore competition really is. As a counter-cultural effort, we need to employ tools appropriate to counter-cultural movements.”

Discussion



LionKimbro Great article! I’d like to read “No Contest” now, and have added it to my wishlist and Amazon shopping cart.



LionKimbro At the FederationOfDamanhur, I heard two messages: Damanhurians are building a life of cooperation, peace, joy, magic, …

Damanhurians are fiercely competitive people, … 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.



LionKimbro 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."



LionKimbro 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.)



LionKimbro 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: Hello Everyone Many of you have asked “Why do you have a Battle?” and in reply I give you the words of Oberto from the Serata on Thursday evening which was devoted to the forthcoming event: “We will see how well you play, collectively and individually. Unite in the wet! You will fight to come together. Fear, anger, elation… it wil be a crucible. Souls are warming up: it is part of the mechanism.” Here in Damahur emotions are running high as participants prepare to leave for the inter-generational battlefront in the Sacred Wood. The two teams Lattanti (suckling babes) and Bacucchi (old fools) have led a pre-Battle campaign with cartoons and joke articles for the past week, and so now everyone is really charged up to fight. The Bacucchi are very confident that it will all be a walkover and the Lattanti will be wiped out within a few hours, but they have some surprises in store! … 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 Lattanti have come to the following understanding. From this Battle we have been able to individuate points of growth and the difference between us. We still move ourselves instinctively and naively, whereas you have mature knowledge that you know how to apply and communicate with intent in all areas. We have learned presumption from you, but our presumption has no foundation or history behind it. This is a surrender that implies our willingness to learn and be united with you. Now we understand what it means to not have pants. Now we consign to you our Flag, which signifies that we give you our trust without egoism and presumption. This is because you as the older generation can pass on to u the real significance and direction of Damanhur, so that our generation can sustain the common dream. (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: The Bacucchi Commander Bisonte accepted their surrender and united the flames of the two teams. He suggested that the Lattanti join forces with the Bacucchi to erect the Menhir at the Baita Temple, a suggestion that was received with such emotion on the part of the Lattanti that even the tough Commander of the Bacucchi was moved to tears. The intensity with which these Game of Life projects are undertaken is evident from Orata’s account. It is such emotion that makes the Game of Life one of the three important tenets on which the Damanhurian structure is based. … The choice of participating in it requires people to be open to change, to overcome personal limits and conditioning. … … …the continuation of the Bacucchi and Lattanti battle. In November 2005, during a public evening, unexpectedly the Lattanti challenged the Bacucchi, asking for a new opportunity to prove their strength and abilities with a ‘classic’ clash in the woods. The challenge was immediately taken by the Commander of the Bacucchi, and over 200 people joined the teams right there and then. In the following days, though, a general feeling that an old-fashioned battle was not the right thing to do started to spread among many Damanhurians. It was indeed the time in which the community was exploring the deep meaning of the Eighth Quesito , the quest of opening to others, and of reproduction through love: a clash with paint guns was not going to help make these values manifest. The excitement of such an endeavor could distract Damanhurians from the deep meditations on everybody’s personal mission, which was an important theme of the spiritual conversation of the community at that time. Members of the Bacucchi team, prompted by the women of the group, were the first to propose that the teams should challenge each other in works for the growth of Damanhur, in a spirit of love and kindness. The young people understood and accepted, both teams changed their names into Sacred Language, and everybody was free to join the team they wanted, no matter their age. Both teams made new flags and maintained a sacred fire. The competitions consisted in works of public usefulness- such as clearing a large terrain near the Temples from logs and dead trees, cleaning and repainting a recently acquired building, moving the greenhouse to a new location. Members of the two teams were very kind and supportive of each other, and it was not unusual that a group would stop all of a sudden to go hug the members of the other team, to bring them hot tea and cookies. The Battle of the Eighth Quesito was – as all Damanhurian battles – a challenge against one’s personal limits, where everybody was driven by the desire of creating something useful and beautiful that the whole community could enjoy. So, competition at Damanhur is many things.