Defining The Winners And Losers English Literature Essay

‘Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing’ (Lattterell 210). Spoken by one of the most well-known football coaches ever, Vince Lombardi sums up the value America places on competition in this quote. America is dominated by the cultural assumption that the role competition plays in the United States is to define winners and losers. While the assumption does value hard work, perseverance, and giving all one’s got as a pathway to become a winner as well as whoever or whatever one dreams of being in life, the assumption fails to recognize Americans’ obsessions with the infinite new ways they concoct just to prove themselves as winners. In addition, the assumption does not take into account the way competition can turn into an out-of-control complete loss of civility (Latterell 211-213). Even more so, defining winners and losers causes Americans to value the extrinsic rewards for competing instead of looking at the value of intrinsic motivation and cooperation (Latterell 213-214). Joshua Davis and Alfie Kohn each question the assumption that constitutes almost every aspect of Americans’ lives and reflects America’s obsession with defining winners and losers.

To begin with, Joshua Davis looks at the American cultural assumption on competition in his essay “Team USA” by looking at how it played a role in his own life. From early childhood, Davis had been influenced by his mother to become the champion she had never become. Ever since his mother place fifth in the 1962 Miss USA contest, she looked to her son to become the champion she had never been. Even after all of her accomplishments, she still saw herself as a loser or just average, and therefore, she wanted her son to become the winner she could no longer become (263-264). As humorous as it sounds, the five-foot-nine-inch, 129-pound data entry clerk looked to fulfill his goal to become a winner in his own right by becoming a professional arm wrestler (262). In the end, Davis made it all the way to the World Arm Wrestling Championships and ended up getting seventeenth in a field of eighteen. Humorously, Davis is now ranked seventeenth in the world for the 132-pound arm wrestling division without even winning one single match (275).

Overall, the essay pokes fun at the American ideal that any individual can become a champion and winner if he/she really puts his/her mind to it and give it everything he/she has got. American society is so concerned with being winners that Davis wonders where an average citizen like himself stands out in society (275). The fact that this average citizen, who has been labeled a loser his entire life, becomes an internationally ranked arm wrestler without winning one match reflects Americans’ absurd desire to prove themselves as winners in any way imaginable. Davis’s story is a direct criticism of America’s assumption on the value of competition. It is even essential to take notice of the way Davis criticizes America’s cultural assumption that hard work and extreme effort will get anyone to the top. His essay criticizes the assumption because he became internationally ranked with not one win and not nearly the amount of time and hard work that is needed to reach such a high status. By writing about his experience of becoming an internationally ranked arm wrestler through zero wins and no experiences or matches in arm-wrestling in his life prior to the U.S. National Arm Wrestling Championships, the essay further points out the silly, ridiculous, bizarre, and yet comical ways Americans try to prove themselves as winners (265). His mother’s disappointment that came from competing in beauty pageants followed by her strong desire to push her own son to the status of champion is a sad representative example of America’s cultural desire to win-at-all-costs for trophies and other extrinsic rewards. The fact that some arm wrestlers had their legs amputated in order to cut off unnecessary weight so that they could have a better advantage at winning the gold is yet another ridiculous extreme people resort to in order to get themselves to the admirable, distinguished status of being a winner (275). Essentially, the essay is a criticism of the value Americans place on being a winner and the measures people go to in order to become a winner.

In “No Contest: Play, Fun, and Competition,” Alfie Kohn argues against the cultural assumption that competition and defining winners and losers is more enjoyable than play (277). To begin with, Kohn defines play and competition as two separate entities. He sees play as a voluntary and pleasing source of freedom free from being serious and free from the recordings of results and scores because they do not matter in play. Whereas play represents a ‘process orientation’ (278) that is intrinsically gratifying, competition represents a ‘product orientation’ (278) that is extrinsically gratifying. Furthermore, competition is strongly regulated with many rules. Motivating Americans for acceptance outside of oneself, competition is very goal-oriented with strong incentives to obtain power, trophies, and/or money (278-280). In competition, someone must end up a loser (286).

Kohn makes a very important point in noticing that it is very hard for Americans to enjoy their leisure time when it is filled with competitions that directly resemble corporate America and America’s hierarchical social status system (280). In essence, Kohn is saying that competition especially sports resemble work more than it resembles pleasure and leisure (279). Competitions and sports are mainly getting people ready for a life that is filled with work, competition, and winners and losers (280). One of Kohn’s most important points is when he states that “We have been raised to associate recreation with the win/lose model of our society, to assume that having fun means someone has to end up a loser” (286). More importantly is the fact that when a victor is named and receives an external reward for their accomplishment over another person/team, any other gratification that could come from a game is lost. Thus the goal and the focus are only on winning in order to receive society’s favor, adoration, and respect (282).

In order to give a better expression of what play looks like, it is necessary to at least identify one of the many noncompetitive games cited in his essay. One such example is the cooperative rather than noncompetitive game called Cooperative Bowling. In this example of play, participants try to take down all ten pins in as many rounds as there are players. It is also significant to note that in play others are partners rather than opponents as in competition (288).

Overall, Kohn’s main point he tries to get across is his belief that play not only can be much more enjoyable than the win/lose structure of competition, but that play can also make people an overall better human being than competition can (277). Furthermore, his entire essay helps assert that play has many more benefits compared to the benefits of competition. Kohn uses the unique advantages people think competition offers and shows how they can be just as advantageous if not more when one is involved in play of all kinds. When looking at the unique quality of teamwork, play is more beneficial and enjoyable because teamwork is, simply stated, a cooperative activity aimed at working together towards a common goal. Therefore, since play forces everyone to cooperate together while competition involves one group working against another enemy, play is twice as gratifying as competition is (283). In addition, play can be just as challenging as competition as evidenced by Cooperative Bowling (287-288). Play can also involve a determination to beat one’s own previous record such as in running to beat one’s previous time(s). It is important to note that this example of play does not involve competition because there are no winners or losers; there is only a push to challenge and better oneself rather than compare oneself to others as competition does (284). Every attempt whether failed or succeeded is nonetheless beneficial when a person challenges himself/herself.

One key feature of competition is the destruction and disadvantages, that competition, and not play, creates. Competition and play are both similar in that they are supposed to provide large scale participation and enjoyment. However, looking at the rates of participation in North America makes one conclude that competition is not very popular or very much enjoyed. ‘In North America it is not uncommon to lose from 80 to 90 percent of our registered organized sports participants by 15 years of age’ (285). That statistic alone should stand out as a major drawback of competition since competition is meant to yield vast participation and enjoyment. Even more so, the pervasive competitiveness in children’s athletic programs such as Little League baseball helps one to see the damage competition causes. Angry parents who yell at their children, humiliating them in the process, are such sad sights to see because they only to want to see their children win (286). As a certified soccer referee who has refereed for over four years now, I can strongly agree with this statement. Competition and sports are valued and accepted for their hostility, aggression, and violence as well (281). It is hard to correlate competition with fun, enjoyment, and unique advantages with this kind of evidence (286).

Findings show that once children are exposed to noncompetitive games they generally prefer these games compared to competitive ones. However, society is socialized and brainwashed into thinking that competition is more enjoyable. When individuals are judged on their own efforts as in play or noncompetitive games and not compared or measured to any other individuals, greater benefits and enjoyment can be obtained (287). Cooperative games offer a satisfaction not only for the success of oneself but also for the success of all involved; sadly, this gratifying advantage is absent from competition (289).

In conclusion, America is encompassed with the assumption that the only way to enjoy and benefit from leisure time is to engage in the win/lose model of competition. While competition is unlikely to fade from its high ranks in capitalistic America, it is essential for Americans to look more at play and noncompetitive games as opportunities for fostering social harmony and enjoyment and success for all.