How the Masters of the Universe Win
When I was growing up, my father would often fulminate against a society that loved to declare people “winners” and “losers.” To him, the desire to win — so emphasized in American culture- was the indication of a soulless corruption of humanism. As a child, I thought of dad as infinitely wise; on this matter, I still do. I can understand wanting to be successful but not the desire to win at the expense of others. Spoiler Alert: I’m bad at most games, where I get routinely routed by all comers!
But my views are hardly common or interesting. What is interesting, however, is the way in which society valorizes winning and, further, the “desire to win.” In the recent documentary on Michael Jordan, the idea that he was the most competitive player anyone had ever seen is emphasized far more than his incredible talent; commentators and players alike loved him for that, even if they found his manner and mien objectionable.
The culture of organized sports lends itself to this theology as well. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve heard “inspirational” speeches by coaches- some of the most quoted and revered people in American culture- about winning. Of course, platitudes are issued- about teamwork and effort- but winning is rewarded far more than effort, even far more than raw talent.
The culture of economistic thinking also plays a huge role. We are told that to be successful we need to generate a high return on investment; in fact, everything is now measured in those terms. In this way, we anoint winners and put a scarlet letter on losers.
This is the phenomenology. But how is this sociologically constructed? How is it possible to create a society in which its members think of winning as normatively right, even just, while at the same time structurally consigning most of them to the status of “losers” by the very logic they valorize?
The key concept here is “cultural hegemony” as expounded by Marx and thereafter by Gramsci. In this conception, hegemony requires the “assent of the people” and requires that the ideological system that reproduces inequality in social and economic relations be inculcated in the minds of everyone as a set of cultural norms.
This process of hegemony starts the very beginning. Children are raised in a milieu in which competition and winning are posited as good, as if ordained by natural law. From sports culture to the competition for placement in schools, to watching parents expend energy to “get ahead” at work, children are constantly exposed to the culture of winners and losers. They learn to reflexively respect authority figures and those who are associated with winning- celebrities, athletes, Generals, and “officials” of all sorts.
As children mature, they are constantly exposed to the culture encapsulated by the rhetorical question, “Whose number one? I am!” They are told they are special when we rise above “the crowd.”
In the workplace, the culture of winning takes on a special valence. The “winners” are offered the blandishments and accoutrements- money, power, respect- while the “losers” are told to get in line. The winners associate themselves with “the company” and become the “us” while the rest are the
“them.” Professionals are told about the importance of “teamwork” and that they are part of a “family” then proceed to hoard the spoils for themselves while berating and firing other members of the family. Vae Victis is not lost on anyone.
Hegemony rarely works without appropriate “fuses” to curb visible surges of excess power hunger. So we quote MLK Jr when he suggests that we ought to love each other or invokes his special dream but ensure that we relegate one of his most profound and progressive sermons- the drum major instinct- to the forgotten annals. We are okay allowing for surface level thinking about love, cooperation, and compatibility but avoid any real assault on our normative love of winning.
Cultural Hegemony must also conjure the appearance of righteousness to truly win the assent of “the masses.” Even people who have decent instincts, are helpful to others, and generally have a generous outlook accept and promote hegemonic norms. Take for instance the emphasis parents put on teamwork and competitiveness- these are rarely evoked in a blood-thirsty voice. But the end-product is the same. “Enlightened” parents suggest that competitiveness may not be about “winning” per se but is a “life-skill” that must be learned. No mention here the self-fulfilling prophecy that since we actually love winning and reward people based on their categorization as “winners”- since we do that- only then does “competitiveness” become a life-skill. One could easily imagine a society where the opposite- full cooperation- is in fact the life-skill we want to inculcate in youth. Scholars like Richard Sennett, Yochai Benkler, and Alfie Kohn have demonstrated the primacy of cooperation over competition as the most productive model for the polity. As for teamwork, the implication is clear- make YOUR team great so the OTHER team losses. One need not have too vivid an imagination to understand the implications there.
Hegemony is not neutral; it has favor and creates fear. Hegemony is a process wherein the ruling classes (or whatever the contextual equivalent) create and propound cultural forms that favor them all the while passing these norms off as the product of natural-law or divine providence.
Indeed, that is how the Masters of the Universe win. Not simply by the bludgeon and the bomb. The win when they get us to think and act in a way that aligns with their interests.
Two anecdotes help bring these points into bold relief.
Some years ago, I had the opportunity to sit in a room of aspiring, “high-potential leaders” at a very successful corporation. A respected, even revered, senior executive posed a question to these budding Masters of the Universe. “If you thought that taking a hill was going to help your side in a conflict but you knew you’d lose half of your people in doing so, would you take the hill?” The hands went up and in unison the audience said “Yes!” To his credit, the executive said that he would no longer do that though he would have when he was younger. But that couldn’t quite sit nor could it provide a sobering end to the session. Just ten minutes later, he was referring to “tough decisions” that are needed in business and said that while he had been forced to lay off hundreds of people in his life, he felt good because “not one time I laid anyone off was I doing anything but doing him a favor.”
As for the second anecdote, let’s return to the wisdom of my father. When my brother and I, excited by the Christmas season and the break from school and hope for some neat gifts, sang “Rudolf,” dad once told us that we shouldn’t sing the song. Rudolph was hated, was a “loser.” Then Santa anointed him sleigh lead. “Then how the reindeer loved him, as they shouted out in glee…” We love winners even when they are reindeer.
