What Is Wrong With...?

It may be a bumper sticker, but it still holds true what it says, “None of us is free if one of us is jailed.” The idea being, of course, that if we don't all get there together none of us can truly get there. This statement may seem ridiculous on its face, but it bears some thought. After all, what is wrong with some or even one person “getting there” and why if one person does would we all need to? Competition, and its adjunct capitalism, is based upon the concept that every situation results in either ‘win’ or ‘loss’. The idea being that if only one can ‘win’ then all will want to be that one and strive for it, but only that one individual will succeed and gain the reward; all others will ‘lose’, resulting in feelings of defeat and envy, discouragement-any number of things which supposedly motivate them to try all the harder next time. These people are not actually ‘losers’, they are capable and deserve their own reward, and are just as worthy of a tangible prize for their considerable efforts. This is part of the problem: no one should have to put forth such energy in an endeavor to receive nothing in return. Competition always results in a substantial misuse and/or waste of effort and energy. Further, competing means that every participant loses. The very act of competing against one’s fellow employees or applicants, classmates, family and friends, etc., creates tension and strife. It is undesirable and unnecessary since the same outcome can be achieved with different means, which preserves everyone’s self-worth and contributes to the harmony and performance of the whole group. Finally, every ‘win’ is only temporary; so even the happy ‘winner’ will be unhappy later when they ‘lose’ too. When the only way to succeed is to ‘win’-whether in a sport, relationship, or job-we miss the point.
The point of performing a job is to do the best one can, not just to out-perform another person; in recreation the idea is to play a game the best one can, not just better than a particular opponent. In a relationship this attitude could mean that one is out to ‘win’ arguments, always be “right”, or in charge, and/or make the decisions. Competing or inciting competition means that you are driving people to fight against each other which cannot be beneficial. The only real ‘winner’ is the person who reaps the rewards of the efforts of all the participants, which more and more is none of the competitors, but someone who already has power. Basically the artificial creation of inequalities is unnecessary and deprives every person involved of integrity, compassion, and unity. The idea of interdependence is key in many philosophies, and in practice allows for all people to ‘win’. When we recognize the necessity of everyone and their contributions and stop fighting against each other, then we will be able to achieve more and “get there” more happily.

What We Need Now Is a Leader

The cult of the single individual, who is responsible for all success, is a farce. Focussing on one person makes the group effort less prominent, instead all the team's efforts are attributed to that individual. This allows or forces us to disregard the others involved, even when there is no way a single person is actually able to do these things. The ramifications of this thinking can be seen if one looks at the aggrandizement of C.E.O.'s across the United States through the 1990's, and the results speak for themselves. While the criminal actions of those involved in schemes like Enron are specific to those executive officers, they would not be possible if a greater amount of attention were paid to the structure as a whole. Political movements, riots, companies, religions, and families are not single-person institutions, it always requires a team, a group, a community, all these examples and more require a multitude of people to function. What the denial of groups means is that we cannot recognize the power that they have, the true power of numbers of people coming together for a common goal. We remain distracted by the illusion of power that one person out front, the "leader", seems to command. By concentrating our attention on one person, we are dis-empowered; because we no longer recognize the power we have in a group, we only see that we have no power as an individual. Instead of recognizing all of the people who prop-up that figure, we focus on the figure, rather than noticing the efforts of the team, some individual is chosen to receive the reward of all their combined efforts. The result is a shift in the balance of power, from the many to the few or the one. Instead of the politicians being representatives of the people, those who elect and direct the politicians now leave the governance entirely to the ones they elected and are left out. These officials do not have the right or "mandate" to 'lead' us, we are the ones who lead, who determine the course of our lives and our country. Just as Abraham Lincoln stated in his address, "...a government of the people, by the people, and for the people." The government is simply an apparatus to carry out our decisions, not some paternal organization gathered to make the best judgments for us. Certain groups are realizing their power, they are acting in a concerted manner, addressing issues that they care about. Are the rest of us just going to lay back and watch in bewilderment the actions of these people? That is exactly what will happen if we are waiting for a person to come along and give us some direction.