08 Dec Intelligent people cooperate whereas silly people compete (KISHIMI ICHIRO & KOGA FUMITAKE) | Part A’
PHILOSOPHER: There is no contradiction or anything of the sort. Try to think of life as a kind of marathon. There are rivals running beside you. As this itself may act as a stimulus and feel reassuring, it does not present any problems. However, the moment one intends to “defeat” that rival, the situation changes completely.
The goal at the outset, which should have been “completing the race” or “running fast,” transforms into the goal of “defeating that person.” The rival, who should have been one’s sworn friend, turns into an enemy who must be crushed. … And this brings out all manner of gamesmanship with regard to winning, and even results in interference and unfair conduct. Even after the race is over, one is unable to celebrate the victory of one’s rival, and one strug- gles with feelings of envy and inferiority.
YOUTH: And that’s why competition is unacceptable?
PHILOSOPHER: Wherever there is competition, gamesmanship and unfairness arise. There is no need to defeat someone. If one can complete the race, isn’t that enough?
YOUTH: No way! You’re naive if you have notions like that!
PHILOSOPHER: Then let’s stop using this marathon example, and get back to real society. Unlike a marathon, in which people vie for the best time, in a community run by a dictatorial leader, there are no clear criteria for “winning.” In a classroom, there are aspects besides schoolwork that can inform one’s decisions. And as long as the judgment criteria are unclear, the world will be rampant with people who hold their comrades back, take credit for other peo- ple’s work, and flatter their leaders so as to gain recognition only for them- selves. You’ve witnessed this kind of thing even in your workplace, haven’t you?
YOUTH: Uh, I guess so …
PHILOSOPHER: In order to prevent such situations from arising, an organization must implement a real democracy that is without reward and pun- ishment, and without competition. Please consider that educating by trying to manipulate people with reward and punishment is an attitude that could not be any further removed from democracy.
YOUTH: Then tell me this. What do you think democracy is? What kind of or- ganization or community would you call democratic?
PHILOSOPHER: A community that is run not on the basis of the principle of competition, but on the principle of cooperation.
YOUTH: The principle of cooperation!
PHILOSOPHER: Put cooperation with others above all else, instead of compe- tition with others. If you can learn to run your classroom according to the prin- ciple of cooperation, your students are likely to adopt a lifestyle in which they see that “people are my comrades.”
YOUTH: Ha-ha! Let’s all get along and do our best? That sort of pipe dream doesn’t hold water even in kindergartens today!
PHILOSOPHER: Suppose there is a student who has engaged repeatedly in problem behavior. Many educators would think to themselves, “What should I do about this student?” They would think about whether they should praise, re- buke, or ignore them, or if they should take some other approach. And then the student would be summoned to the teachers’ room to be dealt with individ- ually. But this way of thinking is wrong. YOUTH: How so?
PHILOSOPHER: The problem here is the principle of competition pervading the entire classroom, not that the student got involved in problem behavior be- cause they were “bad.” If they had pneumonia, for example, it would not be that they are suffering from pneumonia as an individual, but that the entire classroom had a serious case of it from the outset. His problem behavior has appeared as one symptom of that. This is the way of thinking of Adlerian psy- chology.
YOUTH: A sickness of the entire classroom?
PHILOSOPHER: Yes, it is a disease called the principle of competition. What is needed of educators is to look at the community in which the problem behav- ior is occurring, not at the individual who is engaging in it. And then, instead of attempting to treat the individual, to go about treating the community itself. YOUTH: How does one treat an entire classroom that has pneumonia!?
PHILOSOPHER: One stops engaging in reward and punishment, and continually nips competition in the bud. One rids the classroom of the principle of compe- tition. That is the only way.
YOUTH: That would be impossible and have the opposite effect! Have you for- gotten that I’ve already tried no-praising education and failed?
PHILOSOPHER: … Yes, I know. At this point, let’s step back for a moment and take stock of our discussion points. First of all, the strength- and rank- contesting principle of competition always results in “vertical relationships.” Because it creates winners and losers, and the hierarchical relationships that exist between them.
YOUTH: Okay.
PHILOSOPHER: The “horizontal relationships” advocated by Adlerian psy- chology, on the other hand, are imbued with the principle of cooperation. One does not compete with anyone, and there is no winning or losing. It does not matter if there are differences in knowledge, experience, or ability between one- self and others. All people are equal, regardless of scholastic achievement or work performance, and it is in the very act of cooperating with others that building community has meaning.
YOUTH: So, this is what you are talking about when you refer to a democratic nation?
ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΟΣ: Ναι. Η αντλεριανή ψυχολογία είναι μια βασισμένη σε οριζόντιες σχέσεις, ψυχολογία της δημοκρατίας.
PHILOSOPHER: Yes. Adlerian psychology is a horizontal relationship–based “psychology of democracy.”
Part b’ follows
The courage to be happy
KISHIMI ICHIRO & KOGA FUMITAKE
