Competition or Co-operation?

Win-at-all-costs v the London Borough of Brent?  Bad v Good? Taking part is more important than winning?

Competition is what sporting contests are founded on.  Yet after thousands of years, the concept still sits uncomfortably, especially in schools.  Few schools are genuinely comfortable answering the fundamental question, "How Important is Winning?"  Everyone wants to win, though those who are really driven by it are reluctant to confess this dark urge in civilised company.  And even winning isn't enough.  Some winning is better than others.  Winning through adventurous, expressive, attacking play is somehow more worthy than just winning.  Winning through breathtaking, skilled performance attracts more adulation than risk free, efficient triumphs.  It can't all be the product then: the process must have some significance.

And the laws of games are not enough to contain the simple principle of victor and vanquished.  They have failed to adequately legislate for the drive to win, and so the has emerged a fine distinction between the letter and spirit of the law.  This is devilishly difficult to understand in all its complexity, and even the most accomplished sportsmen find themselves confused in this moral maze.

Schools want to win. Too much?  How can it be possible to want to win too much, when winning is the overt purpose of the activity? Schools want to win, sometimes within the moral framework of sportsmanship, whilst at the same time achieving it through high skill, high risk play which involves all players and substitutes. Sometimes, however, they just want to win.  Whatever the cost, and whatever it looks like.  And some weeks it brings a Monday morning legacy of investigations, apologies and sanctions when the desire to win got the better of good sense, and moments of madness ensued. 

Competition can bring out the best in people and in schools.  Striving selflessly to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.  A thing of rare and memorable beauty that transcends the mundane.  Breathtaking excitement as advantage swings towards each side in turn.  Surges of emotion.  Moments of unalloyed delight in a heady cocktail of excitement. Unconfined, though dignified, joy at the final triumph.  A high point of the human condition.  So, competition is great then?

But it can also be miserable.  Bad tempered. A sour atmosphere with both teams taunting each other. Abuse of the referee and the opposition from players and spectators alike.  Seeking to humiliate the opposition. Bitter recrimination at the end.  Aggressive.  Violent.  Foul mouthed.  So... competition is bad and children should be shielded from it.  They should learn to co-operate and hold hands in the interests of world peace. 

So competition is confusing for all involved.  And mystifying for children.  Co-operation must be better. Safer. Though less exciting.

It only makes sense if two forms of competition are recognised.  The first, Adaptive Competition, is essentially a co-operation.  Competitors (or teams of them) collaborate to create the best of competition.  They recognise what the laws intend, and accept them.  They accept that the contest requires the opposition, so value its contribution to the contest ("Thanks for the game" implies that we couldn't have done it without you).  Everyone has a role to play, despite the inevitable range of ability.  In a one sided contest, artificial steps are taken to limit the impact of huge strongest players.  The referee is respected: play is positive, accepting risk and error as part of a contest that is, ultimately, meaningless.  So when it is over, it's over.  All that remains is memory.  Of skill, of endeavour, of striving, of sociability.  And smiles on red faces.

The alternative is Maladaptive Competition.  This is about manipulating the situation, the ground, the rules, the referee, the opposition with the aim of inflicting humiliation.  Telling them they are rubbish.  Getting one over on them.  Leaving them mad. As players, as people, as members of a different school.  And if it can't be done with goals or points then it can be attempted with bitter words.  The atmosphere is aggressive, sour and bitter.  The crowd, and often the coaches, enjoy that.  That's how sport is: it's not for softies.

It's not competition's fault.  Competition is neutral. It has survived thousands of years, so it can't be fundamentally wrong. Feeding Christians to the lions was wrong, so civilized society eventually agreed it had to go.  Despite all efforts, competition survives.

But schools have a choice.  They can promote, or tolerate, the values of Maladaptive competition.  Many schools do, or odd teachers in some schools do.  Often they win, though only if winning means scoring more goals than the opposition.  If winning means something bigger than that, then it has to be accepted that competition, at its best, is a collaboration between all participants, including spectators.  It won't occur, or endure, by accident.  It would need a carefully thought out plan to deliver, develop, reinforce and communicate.

Surely every school that values Adaptive Competition will have one?