No Contest: The Case Against Competition [Englisch] [Taschenbuch]

Early in the book Kohn accounts for why people enjoy competition, that they have merely fallen into a trap by culture. this becomes like christian arguments when one cannot see becuase he is "blinded by the devil." ifyou think competition is better than cooperation says Kohn you are merely subdued to culture values.

The views against competition in this book are extreme and sometimes close to laughable. Kohn claims that all people who like to compete must have low self esteem to want to win. I doubt all athletes go into their sport to clear up "self esteem." Kohn does not view competition as something that is overdone or can be destructive but as something wrong in all sorts.

Another part of the book claims that "cooperative games are more fun than competive" or that play is not play if there is competition. by Kohns logic a cooperative game is play, yet if it turns into a friendly game of cards it is no longer play but psychologically damaging competition.

The flaw in this book is above all the extreme ideal of competition in any form is inferior to cooperation and that competition cannot bring happiness. This view is logically flawed, instead of simply stating that competition can have negative effects if used to often in classroom and cooperation emphasized Kohn wishes that competion in all forms should be eliminated, from school to play.

The book is not however without its good parts. Kohn does state many pre industrial socities that value cooperation and economic cooperation over competition. most of the studies are somewhat dated but they do make a point to the state of early man. Also of note are the small but powerful criquies of capitalism within the book. If Kohn would take a more objective view of competition instead of seeing all forms as an evil this book would be more valuable.

Kohn's most frequent examples of a cooperative society being more efficient are, more often than not, inapplicable to modern adult society. Yes, children can perform better in small groups without competition, but with what goal in mind, and with how many being involved? Organizing 10-20 children to perform a task is one thing. Is he suggesting that entire communities or countries of thousands or millions can be organized the same way? Centrally-planned societies have been tried already, and one only has to travel to the former Soviet Bloc countries to see the results.

Likewise, Kohn's analogies from the animal community - where cooperation is necessary - misses the larger point. Groups of animals may have to work together to get their next meal, but they are ultimately competing against other groups of both their own speciess and others for limited resources.

I agree that competition in some areas has had terrible effects. The news industry is one of the best examples. However, a competition-free society is not only inefficient, it is impossible to organize unless the masses are willing to become sheep, organized by "Big Brother."

Federal Express made the Postal Service and UPS better. Japan's automobile industry made Detroit better. It is fitting that Kohn has likely spent much of his life hiding in one of the few areas free of competition in the U.S., academia. One only has to look at test scores of U.S. students to see where the lack of competition has brought us.