Staff

The history of ‘competition’ won’t cooperate

It's possible to argue the roots of 'competition' imply some sort of cooperation. But the word's history is all about defeating an opponent.

During the Olympics, athletes compete for the gold medal in each sport. It would seem that competition is a battle, a zero-sum game in which there is only one winner. But in recent years, in an attempt to put a more positive spin on the word, authors and athletes have mined competition’s etymology, looking for a more cooperative definition in which participants spur each other to improve, to perform at their highest level.   

For example, in his book, “The Heart of Running,” triathlete Kevin Everett explains that competition derives from the Latin com- (“together”) and petere (“to seek”). Competition is thus “to strive together for the attainment of something. ... True competition is striving for excellence together.” This is a wonderful reframing of what it means to compete – but is this the actual origin of the word, and does it matter?

The etymology Mr. Everett supplies is misleading. Com- does indeed mean “with” in Latin, and one meaning of petere is “to seek” – it is the source of the English word petition, a formal request. Going back even further, however, the root pet- indicated “to rush, to fly” or “to fall upon.” This endowed petere with many meanings: “to attack,” “to let fly [a spear, etc.]” “to embrace” (as in “to fall upon one’s neck”), “to beg, entreat,” as well as “to seek.” Thinking about competition as “attacking together” is, however, not as inspiring.

There are a few instances where com+petere produces a verb that can be defined as “to strive after something ... in company or together,” but these are not found in classical Latin and are “very rare,” according to Lewis & Short’s Latin dictionary. The noun competitor was more common, especially in a political context. In ancient Rome you didn’t “run for” office, you would “seek” it, so a candidate was called a petitor. The other candidates were your competitors, since they were seeking the same office “with” you. Though a literal translation of competitor is “co-seeker,” the Latin word had no connotations of working together. 

Redefining the word competition as “striving together for a common goal” seems to be cherry picking the evidence. It is also an example of what philologists and philosophers call the etymological fallacy, “the idea that knowing about a word’s origin, and particularly its original meaning, gives us the key to understanding its present-day use,” according to the Oxford Handbook of Etymology.

Like many writers, I am drawn to re-imagining competition as a cooperative process that raises everybody up, rather than a battle that leaves only one standing. We’ll have to look beyond the word’s history to support that argument.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to The history of ‘competition’ won’t cooperate
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/In-a-Word/2021/0809/The-history-of-competition-won-t-cooperate
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe