ABSTRACT
The conversation takes up questions about whether competition is good or bad. The participants discuss the views of an influential critic of competition, Alfie Kohn, who thinks that a number of “myths” about the goodness of competition are debunked by social scientific research. Kohn views competition as “mutually exclusive goal attainment,” a structure that is the basis for criticisms: competition promotes egocentricity and selfishness; it reduces opponents to enemies, obstacles, or things to be overcome; and it tends to reduce the value of sport to winning, thereby minimizing the intrinsic values of playing the game, the process of pursuing excellence, and the possibility of moral development. Each criticism is critically examined. Unlike Kohn, Pat argues that competition and play are compatible and that Kohn’s arguments involve certain confusions. Pat believes it is important to distinguish “structural competition” and “attitudinal competition,” which leads to Skylar’s attempt to summarize three views on competition: Logan’s, Kohn’s, and Pat’s. Criticisms of competition are sometimes aligned with criticisms of the obsession with winning, so the conversation turns to questions about winning, pursuing excellence, and the purposes of sport. Does winning always determine athletic superiority? There are various factors, including bad luck, cheating, refereeing errors, gamesmanship, and subpar performances, that undermine the notion that the best player or team always wins. The role of luck in sport and in life is discussed. J. K. defends a deflationary attitude toward winning. Also, if we want sports to be more efficient and accurate in determining athletic excellence, we should question the assumption that a playoff system is the best way to determine who is best.
