Alfie_Kohn_-_The_Case_Against_Competition.mp3 (http://www.radio4all.net/files/xenophrenia@gmail.com/4531-1-Alfie_Kohn_-_The_Case_Against_Competition.mp3)

Found at http://www.radio4all.net/files/xenophrenia@gmail.com/

Also at


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4si1HaDmLg

I haven't finished the whole thing, but found it engaging. It was funny when he said that he has been called a communist and a wimp for this position against competition. But never both at once, ha!


The Case Against Competition
By Alfie Kohn
When it comes to competition, we Americans typically recognize only two legitimate positions: enthusiastic support and qualified support.

The first view holds that the more we immerse our children (and ourselves) in rivalry, the better. Competition builds character and produces excellence. The second stance admits that our society has gotten carried away with the need to be Number One, that we push our kids too hard and too fast to become winners -- but insists that competition can be healthy and fun if we keep it in perspective.

I used to be in the second camp. But after investigating the topic for several years, looking at research from psychology, sociology, biology, education, and other fields, I'm now convinced that neither position is correct. Competition is bad news all right, but it's not just that we overdo it or misapply it. The trouble lies with competition itself. The best amount of competition for our children is none at all, and the very phrase "healthy competition" is actually a contradiction in terms.

That may sound extreme if not downright un-American. But some things aren't just bad because they're done to excess; some things are inherently destructive. Competition, which simply means that one person can succeed only if others fail, is one of those things. It's always unnecessary and inappropriate at school, at play, and at home.


http://www.alfiekohn.org/parenting/tcac.htm


Interesting stuff, interesting science behind it, and not remotely surprising this is almost entirely unknown in our culture.

How could it be otherwise? A society whose ruling class rose and became great competing among themselves, with all of the social violence that engendered almost entirely suffered by other folks, will of course project their mores upon society as a whole."The ruling idea of every epoch..." And this they do even as such behavior is long past as their economy evolves to monopoly and imperialism. The comparison with the aristocrats of the feudalistic order, who maintained their position in society long after their function as the fighting elite had been abandoned, is striking.

So did finish it after the phone call that interrupted my listening was out of the way. The talk includes the obligatory, especially back in the Reagan years when it was done, slam on the USSR.

All in all though, a very interesting piece.