Sermon: Cooperation, the Ying to Competition

[ previous | index | next ]

Cooperation, the Ying to Competition

By Charles Rush

November 14, 2004

One of the most persistent images of my sons when they were toddlers is pecan pie smeared on their cherubic faces. One of my sons would get so excited when pecan pie was served that he would shake his head and finally plunge his face straight down into it, forgoing the use of hands, fingers, or fork.

The apportioning of pie was often a big event. The boys would inspect each piece as Mom cut them. Routinely one of them would cry, "his piece is bigger than mine. I want that one." This hue and cry went out well before they had ever been schooled in the principles of justice which I take to be a significant characteristic of human nature in it's primordial state. The cry for justice, born from anxiety, wrapped in a purview of scarcity, trapped in the fear that I will not get what I need. It is one of the fundamental pillars of human nature.

When they were a little older, and I had become tired of the whelping for me, mine, more, I stumbled on a new way forward. I cut them both just one piece of pie. I gave the knife to one and I told them "cut this in half" and your brother gets to choose which he wants. Oh the care of the cutting. Neurosurgeons could take lessons in how to guide the knife precisely down the middle. Oh and the care of inspection. Small indentations, not visible to the untrained eye, were noted and commented on. Try it sometime and enjoy.

I mention an example from the family because the competitive nature is not diminished in intimate relationships. In some ways it is increased. We are hard wired with the capacities for competition and cooperation but the competitive instinct appears to be sufficiently stronger that it needs spiritual reigning in if it is to be properly utilized.

The psychologists Deutsch and Krauss (1960) developed a game that encourages the players to express either their competitive or cooperative nature. Called the 'trucking game', each player owns a transportation company and is given two routes, one is a long and circuitious route that is excluslively under their control. The other route is a short cut. Now the short cut is a single lane road, and only one car can drive in either direction. To add to the drama, they also installed a gate on either end of the single lane track so that you could prevent your opponent from making progress. You make money by devising the most efficient route.

This game is a non-zero sum game. It is not one where one side loses in order for the other side to win. The object is to maximize your money, which can be done while your opponent makes money as well.

What researchers found is that when you introduced the possibility of a weapon- in this case the gate- the majority of the strategy time was spent threatening each other and trying to out compete rather than cooperatively solve a common problem.

A quite similar phenomenon is witnessed in another game, the "prisoner dilemma". In that game two prisoners are isolated from each other and are separately told the rules. Each of them are accused of a crime. If one of them confesses they receive a light fine of 1 year in prison; if both confess, they each receive 10 years in prison. If one confesses and the other does not, the one who confesses receives an extremely light sentence of 3 months and the one who does not confess receives a 20 year sentence.

Rationally, the best sum total solution is for both prisoners to shut their mouths and take their 1 year sentences. But that is not what typically happens. Typically, they compete and in this case they collectively suffer much more punishment as a result.[i]

It is tempting to speculate on the why of this phenomenon but I do not this morning except to note the theologically obvious, competition is our default mode and cooperation is learned behavior.

As you know, competition has been programmed through the primordial evolutionary matrix of conquest in a world of scarcity. The working hypothesis is that the total food supply for a given region could not keep pace with the population and that our competitive aggression relates to our fundamental strength to survive. Competition for scarce resources led not only to violence but even primordial wars. Indeed, this likely preceded our full development as humans. Studies on higher primates, like chimpanzees, have also shown a tendency to form clans that war with one another in order to more effectively compete for food and the power to procreate. We keep that essential competitive matrix alive in a world of scarcity alive even today. Recall the introductory definition of 'economics' in college as "the efficient allocation of scarce resources among competing uses."[1]

And you may recall one of the more infamous economists of competition in scarcity, Thomas Malthaus, who in the 18th century, argued that in poor countries that are unable to feed themselves, it is actually counter-productive to provide them food aid since it would extend the population making food even more scarce in the future. Malthaus and a number of other scholars that attempted to apply a proto-Darwinian competitive model to the social realm showed the moral and spiritual limits of Social Darwinianism.

Of course, it didn't take us until the 1700's to figure this out. The prophets in the bible spoke mostly about this single issue 3000 years ago. They saw around them the degrading consequences of poverty and also the inordinate perquisites of power. They raised the moral and spiritual question about justice, about the disparity between the conditions of manual labor and military/priestly/monarchical over class. In the name of humanity, they asked why some suffer a life of ignomy that others might lie in ease all of their days. It is a good question still.

Ever since that question was first formed, we have recognized the spiritual necessity of tempering the yang of competition with the ying of cooperation. We simply cannot have one without the other. In fact, in complex societies, we are most regularly in a cycle that moves between both poles. We have to be accomplished in both arenas.

I think of an acquaintance of mine that started a small software company fifteen years ago, leaving the corporate sector with another very smart guy, to start off on their own venture. Almost literally in their basement, they together came up with a software program that found an immediate market, a couple of investors and they began hiring.

It wasn't too long before their little venture had 60, then 90, then 120 employees and one of their employees created a parallel software program to the original that greatly enhanced the marketability of their product line.

In the beginning, the co-owners were able to, more or less dictate company policy since they were the intellectual capital of the firm. It was a great place to work because both of them were Ph.d.'s and allowed a free-form work environment to develop, few rules, no dress code, flexible time. But as soon as the product looked like it was really going to fly, and other employees, not the original intellectual capital had a vital hand in the success of the firm, then the world changed. In a few short, intense months, the employees wanted a different arrangement. They wanted a stake in the profits; they wanted accountable structure that gave people credit for their part; they wanted half a dozen other perq's to be considered for different people's package; they wanted a different structure of input and direction flow from management leaders to the teams.

A shift of power was taking place. The original co-owners were taken aback. They were just Ph.d.'s. Some of the things they agreed with; others they were offended by (they thought they'd created a pretty good work environment and some of these people that are now complaining, they had rescued from the unemployment line just a couple years earlier). Others were just annoying.

They thought about hiring a whole new management team but first, they did the wise thing and started a series of listening sessions. In the process of these listening sessions, many good suggestions were made by the workers. And there were also some not so veiled threats that a very important product delivery that had to be made in 6 months could have trouble if some of the foundational issues were not resolved to everyone's satisfaction. It was a critical juncture for them. They really needed it to stay fiscally solvent. More than that, they needed the next couple to go well for their fledgling market share to have any hope of expansion. They had set out an aggressive time table, made promises and at this point promises were the majority of their moral capital, and hadn't really planned on fundamentally changing the whole company during the next few weeks. But they were forced to.

Power shifted and the collective power of the workers created a competitive internal environment that could lead to conflict, could lead to paralysis for development. One way or the other, it necessitates negotiation.

Now in the old days, or even today in the marginal regions of our world, it might be possible to borrow some money for the short term at exhorbitant rates, kill a few well targeted leaders of the insurrection, threaten others- a technique that works better when there are not many economic alternatives to the one workplace, and just keep all the power and the money for the two co-owners. I know some of you are thinking 'Good idea'. This is the Michael Corleone school of Management.

But how much more spiritually satisfying and productive if you can be creative enough to provide everyone with a sense of ownership, investment, and reward, so that you they willingly focus their energy productively on their common enterprise and will its success together. How much better when everyone stands up from the table, or almost everyone, and says 'win/win'. You unleash a radial power force that multiplies itself exponentially not only in productivity but also in well-being and happiness. That is the spiritual power of co-operation.

Secretly, everyone wants to be part of at team like that. My junior year in High School, our football team was undefeated towards the end of the season, contenders to win the state championship. I remember that positive flow that was unleashed when we thought for a moment that we could do it. There were a lot of big egos on the team. And the miracle for that moment, was that we started working together and relished in making each other look good. The quarterback would drop the ball to you on your left side so you could make the little move you've perfected. This can't last forever, but what a great moment when people can not only show their stuff but want to empower those around them to show their stuff as well. If you are privileged to be part of that at some point in your life, you hold on to that feeling it is so deeply gratifying. You hold on to those people and that chemistry. You replay those times in your mind, because so much of our other life is inane, petty conflict. Inane petty conflict is the spiritual static in the background of our lives. It is a deadening intertia. But to be part of a team that is coming together, where you and everyone else finds their place. You hang on to that.

St. Paul used to say that is why we come together in the church, to allow the Spirit of God to prompt us towards co-operation. Conflict is inevitable. It is inherent in our living. Co-operation, spiritually speaking, is taking the same resonant chords and creating out of them a harmony. The Spirit of God moving in our midst produces that harmony and co-operation. It is a spiritual skill that must be developed with each other. We make it stronger and get more comfortable deploying it in the world around us. This is what the faith is all about.

After this last election, you would think that Christians were only interested in being anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-Muslim, anti-stem cell research. It is true that each of these anti's have a positive coorelate, pro-marriage, pro-life, ect.. but when you look at the rhetoric, the politicians pitched Christians on fear.

Listening to these speeches, I kept asking myself what is it that makes people Christian really? I keep hoping that one day, Christian will become synonymous with 'reconciliation'. I long for the day when Christians are the people that are experts at getting conflicting parties to the negotiating table productively. We are the people who testify that God has taken the initiative to reconcile Himself with the world. We follow the ambassador of reconciliation. One time, in the midst of a conflict, I would love to hear someone stand up and ask "Is there a Christian in the room?" because they think we might be able to help.

When you look at the headlines in our papers, you know that this is the spiritual skill we most need to make actual, concrete progress. It is true that our soldiers are stunning in their skill, as the attack on Fallujah is proving once again. But we know that it will not be enough to simply win a military victory there. We know that we have to appeal to the hearts and minds of ordinary people. We have to inspire them to dream productive dreams. We must, ultimately, transform conflict into co-operation. That is the central task.

The same is true in Israel and Palestine. The same is true in India and Pakistan. The same is true in Afghanistan, the Sudan, the Ivory Coast, Eritrea, Liberia… the list is long. The spiritual power of reconciliation is what is needed.

But what an outstanding and inspiring power it really is. I was recently watching a documentary on Bobby Kennedy. All those who were close to him said that he changed after his brother died. He developed a reservoir of compassion that certainly seemed from a distance to have been a spiritual change in his basic approach to life. Perhaps because of his personal experience with loss and pain, he was able to listen to others in pain. And he did quite a lot of it. I was surprised, watching the documentary, just how much time he spent visiting Harlem, Bedford Stuyvesant, and all of the depressed areas of our area. For a senator, he spent a lot of time listening to people and it changed him.

When he was running for president, he was in the Delta in Mississippi talking to share croppers about issues of racism and poverty. His staff thought he was taking too long and tried to get him to hurry up. At one point, he walked back past his staff, largely white law students from Ivy league colleges like himself and he said, "these are my people". That story struck me as probably authentic. He may really have changed. We live in an era of such partisanship and such cynicism that it is hard for us to really imagine that someone could actually take on servant leadership in that manner. But maybe he just did.

One thing is clear. Other people believed that he did. One of the more moving parts of the documentary was a campaign stop in Indianapolis. It was evening and the campaign stop was on the Black side of town. Just as they got off the plane, his staff was informed that Dr. King had just been assassinated. The wisdom of the staff was to cancel the stop but he didn't. Remembering just how tense that era was, they showed him heading to the microphone, probably only a dozen white guys with him in a sea of black and he began his speech informing the crowd that Dr. King had just been murdered. Shock and disbelief went through the crowd. You didn't know what could happen next. But he spoke of his brother's death and the speech itself was not remarkable but the event was. He managed to take the shock and disappointment, the grief and the pain that people were feeling and channel it in a spiritually productive way. And he could only do that if he had a certain authority because people believed in him as a reconciler. They narrator only commented that Indianapolis was one of the only major cities in the U.S. that didn't have riots that night. Reconciliation is a powerful, positive force.

You know that Bobby Kennedy died in California and they decided to take his body back across the country to be buried in Arlington Cemetery, so the train went wended its way from one coast to the other. The images from that train ride were very moving. In big city, small town, and rural crossing people turned out. Black, white, Hispanic- not just a couple but hundreds and thousands. It was so moving so see that beautiful rainbow that is our country, all these great citizens standing next to one another. They came out because they were inspired by a dream of reconciliation and co-operation, grand dream that is fortunately the promise of our country, but more than that is the promise, ultimately, of our God.

That moment in our history was a high point for integration. It pointed towards a future that we haven't gotten to yet, but we can. I hope for you that other people will see you as one of those bearers of that vision. I hope that others will vest you with authority because you embody the spirit of reconciliation, you pull people together, you make everyone stronger. I hope the Spirit rests upon you too. Amen.

[1] I got this observation from an interesting short article, "Competition, Cooperation, or Both?" that can be found at http://www.webspawner.com/users/donquijote14/

[i] I got these examples from www.dushkin.com/connectext/psy/ch15/prison.mhtml