Having channeled my need for competition into Marlow’s Rowers Revenge (pfd of results) at the weekend, I am left reflecting on the ‘cost’ of that competitive spirit. The time trial format of Triathlons supposedly makes them a ‘race of truth’; it is only you against the clock for motivation. The reality is less solipsist and more social than that. You end up racing just about anything with the aim of pushing yourself further than you believe your body thinks is possible. On the ergo I found motivation from watching the guy next to me as we matched each other stroke for stroke and then continued the battle on the bike for the next 25k. Clocks didn’t come into it and though he managed to pull away on the last climb, I ‘clung’ onto him metaphorically as I maintained sight of him through the 7.5k of the run. Corners were highly de-motivating! In the boat (rowing) you push off everything, other boats, other rowers, stationary objects on the bank, etc.
It is our competitive spirit which drives us to ‘overstretch’ ourselves, take risks, ignore aches and pains which has taken centre stage in our idea of ‘culture’ as reaching or achieving our individual "potential". Empowering the individual has taken the ascendancy against universal ideals of attainment. But such competition does not have to be purely an affirmation of potential of ‘individual’ excellence (which arguably has what the Olympics now celebrates) but also about the more epistemologically ambiguous ideas of social potential and achievement.
Which brings me to the relevance of this mildly philosophical reminiscence of the "joys" of competitive exercise. Just what is the "potential" which we seek, is it merely our individual ‘nature’ or does it offer a socially transcendent outcome? Is our competitive potential (potentia) to be seen as an assertion our natural ‘power’/’will’ (both means and end of competition being the need to compete) or as a striving for some ideal ‘form’ or state of perfection?
The Oxford and Cambridge boat races are often characterized as such a competition, between the raw power and emotion of the Oxford approach and the calm perfection of technique that sits at the heart of Cambridge’s ethos. In the former, the individual strives to be "superhuman" and to crush the foe in the opposite seat; in the latter the individual is lost to the whole, which when it clicks it holds an almost ritualistic power over you as you become ‘conscious’ of the collective movement of the boat above all personal concerns about heart rate, pain or breathlessness. As such it is a moment of philosophical insight which leaves a lasting impression (and one that is more meaningful than the rantings of a diehard ‘boatie’).
The dislocation of philosophy from physical pursuits in the West is, I think, a mistake which is carried into other areas of ‘practical’ life. Practical philosophy becomes like a form of social homeopathy; an immaterial ingredient supposedly affecting material life, rather than being about understanding the ambiguous reality of our ‘nature’ (perhaps more like ‘physis’ as the Greeks would characterize it). A potent combination of natural necessity and human techne (a much broader word than our conception of technology – implying something like the skill of Rooney or Ronaldo rather the workings of an ipod) which is realized through the pursuit of ideals of both mental and physical achievement.
All of which is a round about way of linking to my own reason for competing which is to raise money for Chelsea and Westminster Hospital - a social ideal well worth the morning after ache in my legs!
http://chelwestcharityfundraising.org.uk/oikonomics_brucedavis
More donations welcomed!
Nice piece.
For me, sporting competition provides the essential motivation to stay healthy, which is in turn fundamental to your welfare personally, professionally and socially. It's necessary because 'keeping fit' is a fairly empty goal in itself that doesn't yield any real sense of achievement beyond occasionally realising you feel good. It isn't compelling when it's snowing or you have a hangover. Competition demands commitment, introduces purpose, measurement, interim goals, and unlocks the potential for a sense of achievement, as well as a fear of failure. All this motivates you to improve, rather than merely plod along, so that 'keeping fit' becomes a given rather than a goal in itself.
While there's an opportunity cost to the time invested, that time yields a dividend in terms of improved health and relationships. Of course, there's a law of diminishing marginal returns, and you need to take care of your knees ;-)
Posted by: Pragmatist | October 07, 2009 at 05:17 PM
I can see that competition can provide incentives (especially the fear of being overtaken by an octogenarian olympian) but the success of sites like Nike Plus and Concept 2's online rankings shift the competition into a more collective sense of effort. It is perhaps why you get hotspots of physical activity in certain localities, it not just the environment (or lack of it) but also the nudging of examples of real people getting out there and doing it?
Also this obsession with sport being linked to 'getting thin' seems counter productive - leave that to the lightweights! (Motto Train more, eat less).
Posted by: Bruce Davis | October 08, 2009 at 08:23 PM