Intellectual arguments can end with both people thinking they won. Sport is different.by Benjamin Markovits / November 13, 2018 / Leave a comment
Published in December 2018 issue of Prospect Magazine
I was always a competitive kid, maybe because I spotted a gap in the market. My brother, who is four years older, knew everything, but was also practical—he was good with his hands, he could make things. If we needed a lean-to in the backyard to store the wood, he would figure out how to build it, and then he would patiently build it. I wasn’t really interested in anything unless you could win.
The competitive spirit sometimes gets a bad rap. It’s seen as a form of aggression. People connect it intellectually to some version of Darwinism—everyone’s out for themselves, and they’ll do anything they can to make sure they come out on top. Everything’s a battle, for resources or points or money. The one moral virtue they associate with competition has to do with teamwork—the idea of sacrificing yourself for the greater good.
Yet this doesn’t really do justice to the friendliness of competition—as a model, I mean, for social human behaviour. People play games to have fun. You can’t play unless you agree with your opponents on rules and goals—and you can’t play unless you find a way to play so that afterwards you can play again.
Games and sports are a series of conventions that have been agreed over time, and which work well. They have to reward effort and skill, but they also have to offer different kinds of talent ways of leveraging their expertise to become successful. In other words, a game in which the bigger or the quicker kid always wins won’t last long.
In that sense, they resemble good government—there have to be checks on certain kinds of obvious power. I starte…