WINNER TAKE ALL
I've been reading The Winner-Take- All Society by Frank and Cook. While I don't agree with everything in the book, the authors have identified a vexing problem. They point out that some pursuits reward the best, however defined, with enormous gains while others, sometimes almost as good by any standard, with little or nothing. For example, the "best" singer may make millions while thousands of talented singers earn nothing from singing. This sometimes has perverse economic effects, diverting resources which could be better employed elsewhere.
I am more interested in the personal effect of winner-take-all pursuits and how the modern world makes it difficult to take satisfaction from doing one's best. The authors point out that in the era before technical advances in communication there was room for many singers to perform and be rewarded. Singers could be successful in many communities, performing before small local audiences. Now, the "best" singer can be in every community at once, through modern recording and communication techniques. What does this do to the thousands of talented singers around the world who for one reason or another will not be the best?
If you enjoy some pursuit, but cannot be the best, what should you do? Should you abandon the pursuit and do something else? If you cannot be Tiger Woods should you give up golf? If you cannot be Horowitz should you cease playing the piano? If you cannot be Stephen King should you put down your pen?
Perhaps the answer lies in the definition of winner. The book deals with economics so the winner for its purposes is the one who receives the largest material reward. But winning may involve other things. If a less-talented or less-successful singer gives pleasure to herself or her family or her friends, isn't that winning even if no check is proffered? If a 20 handicap golfer gains moderate, pleasurable exercise from playing golf, if he brightens the day of others by honorable competition, if his love of the game supports, in some measure, the rewards of the more fortunate, isn't that winning? If a writer touches one person's life, improves one person's circumstances, helps one person gain greater self-knowledge, isn't that a victory?
A friend of mine once pointed out that winning can only be judged by looking to the competitor's abilities. If a handicapped person runs a 20 minute mile, he won't receive any applause but he may have achieved something tremendous. Similarly, if a talented musician squanders his skills, doesn't practice, doesn't share his or her talent with others, that musician is a failure, even if the world applauds and he is well-rewarded materially. In contrast, a less-talented musician who works hard, does his or her best and brightens the lives of even a few listeners is a winner, even if unpaid or, even, ridiculed.
I think this is the answer. If we do our best at something we enjoy, which helps others, or at least harms no one, we are winners. We don't need applause or material rewards to be victorious, we need only the inner satisfaction which comes from doing the best we can.
5-22-00