a christian defense of limited competition: part two

A Working Definition

First, let us get clear about what is meant by competition and form a working definition for this essay: competition is the rivalry between two or more people or communities for an end that cannot be shared equally. By this definition, I mean to say that competition is a struggle for first place, for a victory over the opponent, for the higher grade, for the desired job, for a piece of land, and so on. Beyond this, we will find that competition can be either pure or superficial, and that it can be either arbitrary or principled. That is what I would like to sort out now.

Pure Competition and Superficial Competition

The first of our sorting to be made is between pure and superficial competition. Pure competition is a strict adherence to the definition above and, at the core, is a struggle for the sake of victory over an opponent. That is, the purpose of the struggle is to be distinguished as a winner over the loser.

In contrast, superficial competition is a struggle that is undertaken, not ultimately for victory, but for an end that can be equally shared. Playing Wii Tennis with a group of friends, either because one wants to increase hand-eye coordination or because one wants to have a good time, would be an example of a struggle aimed at an end that can be shared equally among all participants. I call this superficial because, in the end, everyone gets what they set out for--everyone is a winner--which seems to contradict the very definition of competition. It is only competition at the surface.

In short, superficial competition means winning the struggle or game is secondary to the primary goal of having fun or developing certain skills or so on. And conversely, pure competition means the primary goal is always victory, no matter the secondary benefits, and the loser is primarily a loser, no matter the secondary benefits.

To distinguish between the two one can simply ask whether the struggle would be stopped if a goal other than victory were not being accomplished. That is, would one turn off the Wii if people are no longer enjoying one another's company? If so, it is superficial because the primary goal is having fun not finding a winner. However, if one persists in Wii Tennis, despite the fact that one or all have ceased to enjoy the game, then it is pure because the primary goal is to find a winner.

Arbitrary Competition and Principled Competition

Now we turn to the distinction between arbitrary and principled competition. Arbitrary competition describes the situations where the opposing sides have no objective or principled reason why they should be engaged in a struggle or why one opponent should win over the other; there are only relative gains or personal interests. For example, it is arbitrary whether the Boys beat the Girls in a game of Catch Phrase. While there may be a desirable gain for the Boys, such as bragging rights or vindication, there is no objective reason to believe that the Boys should subdue the Girls. That is, the Boys are certainly invested in a victory, but the Girls are equally invested; deciding which one ought to win is completely relative to the interests of the individuals involved.

This may make more sense when contrasted with its opposite, principled competition. In this case, the struggle is undertaken on the basis of a principle and there is an objectively desirable victor; it is a matter of principle that one side win over the other. For example, we can imagine a scenario where a greedy landlord has manipulated the law, taking advantage of a family and driving them out of their home, all the while making significant financial gain in the process. It is an objective matter of justice that one engages in a struggle—in this case, a legal battle—to be victorious over the other. This does not mean that there are not relative gains and personal preferences involved. Indeed, the landlord, and likely his attorney as well, have an interest in being victorious, protecting the money he has acquired unjustly. Yet, I would argue that there is a principled, objective reason why the family should be victorious--it is a matter of right and wrong, justice and injustice, truth and falsity, good and evil.

One can judge between these two by asking the question, "Will the world truly be better off if one side is victorious over the other?" In the case of arbitrary competition, the answer would be no—at least, from an objective point of view. I do not want to get ahead of myself, but in the case of sports, one might feel as though the world will be better if their team wins, but one must finally admit that this is completely arbitrary. However, in the case of principled competition, the world does objectively benefit from one side winning over the other, as in the example of the landlord and the family. If the family wins in the legal struggle, the world has objectively become a more just place is better off because of it.

Of course, one could complicate this distinction by raising a question about the nature of objectivity. However, the purpose of this essay is to give a Christian defense of limited competition, and therefore I take for granted some basic Christian presuppositions. Namely, that there is objective truth and morality; that this morality is revealed through scripture; and that while there may be conflicting views on the interpretation of scripture, Christians are committed to each other in love, resulting in a humble community that seeks to find truth in and through their disagreements. All that is to say, while there may not be an easy way to parse out an agreeable distinction between principled and arbitrary competition, we can certainly agree that there is a right answer to the question.

To take our definition of competition yet one step further, we may combine these distinctions in order to more accurately describe just what kind of competition we are discussing. So, we may talk about a pure and principled competition such as a debate about legalizing incest. Or we can talk about a superficial and arbitrary competition such as a little league baseball game. Or finally, we may talk about pure and arbitrary competition such as most business in a capitalist economy. (As for a superficial and principled competition, there can be no such thing—or at least I cannot think of an example.) In the following parts I would like to consider these combined distinctions even further and then draw some conclusions about a Biblical perspective on competition.