Dismantling Rivalry−With a Limp and a Smile

Pandavas x Kauravas. Cain x Abel. Loki x Thor. Batman x Joker. Ram x Ravan. Harry Potter x Voldemort. Sherlock Holmes x James Moriarty. Carl Lewis x Ben Johnson. Bruce Lee x Han. And... Jerry Seinfeld x Duncan Meyer (Seinfeld's 'The race' anybody? OK, I agree this last one doesn't belong in this list.)

Whether in fiction or real-life, rivalry among the human species is a phenomenon that has been explored and narrated from time immemorial. Etched deep in the human understanding of the self, in relationship to others, remains a contentious spirit ready to nuke out the almost-equal other. In the annals of history, one must be victorious and therefore the other vilified and obliterated.

Granted, rivalry is not unique to the human world. It seems to have left its imprint on other life-forms too. Nevertheless, my interest is in the variety known as homo sapiens. And regardless of motives, methods and telos, I would like to limit the understanding of the term to 'a developing but unhealthy competition across a period of time'.

It also begs the question, what differentiates rivalry from its cousin-competition? At the risk of being a reductionist, I'll go ahead and say that it boils down to two things. Rivalry ignores the personhood of the rival and is accompanied by harmful intent. Remember Ivan Drago in Rocky IV?

This phenomenon is not limited to individuals but also inhabits the core of societies and shapes group-thinking, social systems and laws resulting in other phenomena like racism, xenophobia, jingoism or even something as cliched as liberalism vs. communism.

Though group culture strongly shapes and dictates individuals likes and dislikes, I would like to place the logical priority on the individual in whom lies the seed potential to influence other individuals thereby producing culture. If the individual changes, there can be a positive effect on the society as a whole.

Can one individual cause a change? Sure, look at Hitler or Gandhi. I am invested in the change that prioritizes an internal cultural upheaval of the individual without discounting the need for simultaneous efforts in large scale changes in social systems. In the idea of the individual lies the understanding of personhood, which is minimized or denied, in rivalry. The ultimate action (vote, kick, protest etc.) within a community action goes back to every individual who constitutes the community. The individual is culpable.

I must clarify my position on this a bit more. I am not saying that the individual is more important than the community. Jesus, when asked what the most important law was, responded saying it was to love God. But it was not over. Not so quickly. No easy answers with Jesus. It's never that simple. He finished it by equally demanding a love for ones neighbour as oneself.

Likewise, in this conversation, what's most important, you ask? The individual, I say. The emphasis ought to be on a revolution within the individual. But it's not over. Not so quickly. No easy answers. There should be a simultaneous looking to the community because the community through its social systems shapes the culture of the individual too.

So the logical priority starts with the individual. The way out of rivalry must be generated out of the individual. This internal revolution also must be, as indicated, revolutionary in character. The internal ought manifest itself externally in a way that presses against the grain of the forces of the dominant culture that dehumanizes and intents harm against the other.

The solution, therefore, ought to generate an internal upheaval, which is not just a flash in the pan, but consistent and lasting. Such an internal upheaval has typically (but not always) been facilitated by the religious dimension which acts like a wrecking ball. This, then, will give shape and force to larger socio-cultural reforms.

Rivalry is, sadly, a very common phenomenon shaped by a culture of individualism and, dare I say, neo-liberalism. It reduces the apprehension of individuals to certain narrow anthropological and economical windows, instead of a holistic one. The internal upheaval must press against these forces and redeem the good that's possible with them.

Jesus said that one ought to show the other cheek when slapped on one. Even better, "love your enemies" and to deny oneself, he taught. A solution should involve a revolution of love through the act of dying to oneself. True religion, should be characterized minimally (though not alone) by such manifestations. It involves the individual and the community. It involves the perishing of the self for the sake of flourishing of the community.

In Jesus Christ, there is a teaching and a demonstration towards this. It is a subversion of everything that the culture around us dictates. There is a giving up of the self with a clear sense of hope that a better world is being established- a partnership in something that Jesus accomplished and set into motion.

The revolution demands this for the sake of the other. It is a revolution which moves slowly but will surely get there. It is a revolution which is not afraid to expose the ills. It paints a bravery that moves forward, not with a pumped-up chest but a wounded limp and a smile.