Competitive society is stressful
COMMENTARY
Kip Brown

Considering the stress of applying for graduate school, studying for standardized tests, competing in class and striving to avoid a nervous breakdown, my senior year is strengthening the cynical notion that life is an endless cycle of competition.

Ironically, I usually vent this cynicism by playing basketball, which I play for the sake of pure competition. Either that, or I play imaginary soccer on my PlayStation 2, where I compete on an imaginary pitch, with an imaginary ball, against imaginary players.

Where does this competitiveness come from? Considering that we are all indoctrinated with the notion that competition is supremely good for the operation of a market-based economy, which increases the common good, I think I have a good idea from where my competitive fire comes.

Such a competitive, market-based paradigm for society assumes the best way to improve our lives is to encourage increased competition in the “free” marketplace. Indeed, when many economists are faced with community breakdown, such as in times of massive unemployment, they typically argue for the benefits of the free market in the long term because increased productive efficiency in the future will outweigh the misery of the present.

For instance, Adam Smith, the father of Western economics, believed that people are much better off producing goods in factory labor rather than living in subsistence-based rural areas because industrialization results in more abundant goods and services being available for consumers. Many of his own Scottish people disagreed, however, because they rallied against the enclosure of their ancestral land by the English.

American history tells of similar imperialistic behavior in which a more “civilized” nation displaced both Native American populations and African slaves for the sake of increased profits.

In all this displacing, those in power claimed that the more competitive a society is, the more progressive it will be. It is commonly assumed that hunter-gatherer societies — probably the least competitive of societies — were riddled with poverty and misery.

Yet, as theologian Carol Johnston points out in her book “The Health and Wealth of Nations,” anthropologists are beginning to question the common view that these premodern societies were filled with massive poverty. Indeed, the skeletal remains of many premodern societies, such as the Mayans, reveal they were surprisingly well-nourished. Anthropologists are finding that many premodern peoples were living in a fashion healthier than how many people live today.

And even though it is true that modern people are living longer than previous societies due to medical advances, does it necessarily follow that our lives are somehow better? Isn’t a shorter life lived in mutuality and cooperation more desirable than a longer life marked by competition with one’s neighbor for scarce employment opportunities and worrying about becoming homeless?

So it seems endless competition is neither inevitable, nor necessarily better than a life lived in cooperation and mutuality, although it admittedly will have fewer goods and services (yes, I think I could survive without fake soccer). Moreover, I do not see why we could not maintain certain technological advances that can improve our lives while changing our focus from the wealth of individuals to the health of the community. However, there’s some competition I need to attend to. I have application essays to write, classes to conquer, standardized tests to study for, and, most importantly, I have the imaginary World Cup finals to play.

Kip Brown is a senior religion major from Enid, Okla.