Fighting for Life

Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness

Walter J. Ong

• Publisher: Cornell University Press
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780801478451
• eBook ISBN: 9780801466281
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Literary Criticism Theory
• Index: Social Sciences

What accounts for the popularity of the macho image, the fanaticism of sports enthusiasts, and the perennial appeal of Don Quixote's ineffectual struggles? In Fighting for Life, Walter J. Ong addresses these and related questions, offering insight into the role of competition in human existence. Focusing on the ways in which human life is affected by contest, Ong argues that the male agonistic drive finds an outlet in games as divergent as football and chess.

Demonstrating the importance of contest in biological evolution and in the growth of consciousness out of the unconscious, Ong also shows how adversary procedure has affected social, linguistic, and intellectual history. He discusses shifting patterns of contest in such arenas as spectator sports, politics, business, academia, and religion. Human beings' internalization of agonistic drives, he concludes, can foster the deeper discovery of the self and of distinctively human freedom.

PART ONE

Backgrounds

1

Contest and Other Adversatives

Adversativeness

Contest is a part of human life everywhere that human life is found. In war and in games, in work and in play, physically, intellectually, and morally, human beings match themselves with or against one another. Struggle appears inseparable from human life, and contest is a particular focus or mode of interpersonal struggle, an opposition that can be hostile but need not be, for certain kinds of contest may serve to sublimate and dissolve hostilities and to build friendship and cooperation.

Contest is one kind of adversativeness, if we understand adversativeness in the ordinary large sense of a relationship in which beings are set against or act against one another. Adversative action, action against, can be destructive, but often it is supportive. If our feet press against the surface we walk on and it does not resist the pressure, we are lost. We all have suffered from dreams in which we feel ourselves plummeting through space. Such dreams can be terrifying, for bodily existence is such that it requires some kind of againstness. Gravity is reassuring; it establishes fields where adversativeness can work and where it functions as a central element in all physical existence.

But adversativeness is significant beyond the physical. It has provided a paradigm for understanding our own existence: in order to know myself, I must know that something else is not me and is (in some measure) set against me, psychologically as well as physically. Erik Erikson (1963:410–11) has discussed the need of the child to find psychic borderlines for guidance—“Stop it! You may not do that!”—and even to locate or imaginatively project some specific enemy—often a “monster”—to free himself or herself from anxieties reaching vaguely into the unknown. Maturity reduces the need to find or project an enemy in order to hold oneself together: psychic organization becomes more interiorized.

Various kinds of adversativeness have been exploited to deal intellectually with the world and with being itself from as far back as we can trace human thought up to the living present. “See now the works of the Most High,” we read in Sirach 53:15. “They come in pairs, the one opposite the other.” We Find adversatives in the all but ubiquitous Mother Earth and Father Sky, the Chinese li and ch’i, yin and yang, Empedoclean attraction and repulsion, the Platonic dialectic, matter and form, Abelard’s sic et non, essence and existence, Hegelian dialectic, and countless other binary modes of analysis. These modes proceed by taking one or another sort of adversativeness as an ultimate given and reducing or otherwise referring everything in one way or another to it, thereby satisfying the appetite for understanding, or part of the appetite. Empedocles used adversatives to construct a cosmology. Hobbes to construct a kind of sociology, Hegel to construct a metaphysic of historical change, Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer to construct a biodynamics of “struggle” for life.

Historians often rest their cases on adversative paradigms. For some two hundred years we have been quite happy with “explanations” of what is going on in history that proceed by selectively grouping elements around opposing poles: what happened in the latter part of the eighteenth century was that something called “romanticism” emerged as a “reaction” to something called “classicism” (or “neoclassicism”)—that is what happened. Everyone knows that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” Our satisfaction with the zigzag through time that such explanations construct probably owes as much to this adversative paradigm of Newtonian physics as it does to Hegelian theorizing, though it probably owes even more to our muscular experience of adversativeness in the physical world.

In modern times adversativeness has become even more particularized as a tool and object of thought. Binary opposition serves as the foundation of virtually all of modem structuralism, whether linguistic, as in Roman Jakobson’s phonemics (Jakobson, Fant, and Halle, 1969), which is related to Ferdinand de Saussure’s earlier binary linguistics (Schneidau, 1977:144–45), or anthropological, as in Claude Lévi-Strauss (1969), whose doctrine Morris Freilich sums up: “Everything of importance comes in twos and in conflict” (1977:246). Binary opposition underlies all modern communication theory and computerization. Robert Frost was onto the pattern: “It almost scares / A man the way things come in pairs.” But Charles Sanders Peirce is perhaps the most forthright of all authenticators of adversativeness: “A thing without oppositions ipso facto does not exist” (1931:1, no. 457).

Recent decades have seen the growth of an immense literature reporting analytic, clinical, and experimental studies concerning specific manifestations of adversativeness ranging from the cataclysmic to the trivial, particularly among living organisms, including the human. Psychologists, psychiatrists, physiologists, endocrinologists, sociologists, biologists and sociobiologists, anthropologists, criminologists, political scientists, jurists, rhetoricians, communications experts, philosophers, theologians, and others have studied innumerable instances and kinds of aggression, conflict, polemic, hostility, confrontation tactics, clashes of personalities, competition, games, contest, and other adversative manifestations. They have canvassed various ways of dealing with or eliminating or circumventing or increasing or reducing or stabilizing these and related adversative phenomena. In Egypt a few years ago I met an itinerant self-styled “conflict engineer” who was roaming the world to accumulate conflict experience before settling down to the permanent practice of conflict engineering in California.

Certain works on adversativeness of various sorts have become classic. Johan Huizinga’s wide-ranging Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture (1955) has made the present generation aware of the pervasiveness of agonistic activity in the form of play through the entire human lifeworld. Huizinga is concerned chiefly with human beings but makes some references to animal behavior. He suggests that the antagonistic, antithetical structures of archaic societies act out antithetical structures in the cosmos (1955:53–56), but he has also outlined some of the civilizing or consciousness-raising effects of agonistic activity.

Roger Caillois’s Man, Play, and Games (1961) undertakes to classify all games as based on either competition (agōn), chance (alea), mimicry (imitatio or ars mimica), or dizziness or vertigo (ilinx), suggesting that the transition to civilization is marked by the reduction of the imitatio-ilinx pair and the ascendancy of the agōn-alea. His treatment is useful but far narrower than Huizinga’s.

Two other widely read semipopular books. On Aggression (1966), by the Nobel Prize winner Konrad Lorenz, and The Territorial Imperative (1967), by the former free-lance writer Robert Ardrey, have treated animal behavior in greater detail, familiarizing the general educated public with the elaborate agonistic patterns evolved in animal behavior and urging that humankind’s evolutionary past has programmed the species genetically for war. Moving from physics through biology to psychology, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin has interpreted the whole of cosmic and human social evolution as a form of conflict resolution (1965a:21, 29, 105; 1965b:21, 71, 147; 1969:105, 108, 134; Heagle, 1973:46–58).

In The Origins and History of Consciousness (1954), still a capital summary work that will serve occasionally in the present study as a point of reference, Erich Neumann has brought together in a generally Jungian framework a good deal of thought touching on struggle as an element in both ontogenetic and phylogenetic psychic development. Neumann’s first stage is that of the undifferentiated, self-contained whole symbolized by the uroboros (Greek ouroboros, tail eater), the snake with its tail in its mouth, seeking to tuck itself inside itself and thus to eliminate from consciousness all external reality. (The thumb-sucking child, regressing into itself from a threatening external world, is engaged in a similar project.) Except for this initial stage (1), a flight from all conflict, all of the stages that Neumann discerns in the development of consciousness through human history are more or less agonistic in constitution: (2) domination by the Great Mother, (3) separation of the world parents, (4) birth of the hero (rise of masculinity and the personalized ego), (5) slaying of the mother and (6) of the father, (7) freeing of the captive, and (8) transformation into self-conscious individualism, symbolized primordially in the Osiris myth but today entering into new personalizing phases. Erik Erikson’s Childhood and Society (1963), a corresponding Freudian account of development, mostly ontogenetic, treats adversativeness in human personality developments, especially in connection with trust and mistrust and with American identity.

Finally, Edward O. Wilson’s massive Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975) has pulled together a vast amount of work on adversativeness and related subjects now available in sociological, anthropological, psychological, biological, and related literature, and has interpreted the whole in terms of the continuities between animal ethology and human sociology. To avoid multiplication of references, for support of certain statements in the present work I at times cite Sociobiology alone without explicit mention of the scattered publications that validate the statement and that the reader can readily trace through Wilson’s work. One need not agree entirely—as I by no means agree entirely—with the philosophically couched theories Wilson advances in this book to value and use the comparative data he so generously provides. The book is particularly valuable because of the specificity and range of the research it reports on and synthesizes, and future work not only in sociobiology but also in a great many other fields will always be indebted to Wilson.

Wilson defines sociobiology (1975:595) as “the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior.” Applied to human beings, such study has great values and certain limits. One of its great values is that it shows real relationships between the highest human intellectual and volitional activities and the permanent biological roots of humanity. Its limits are set by the fact that there are breaks, greater than quantum leaps, between biology and human consciousness, which shapes what is most definitive in human behavior and which sociobiology does not deal with as such. Sociobiology says nothing of the self-consciousness in which human behavior roots itself, the unique “I” that each person utters and that is inaccessible to anyone else in the world. It says nothing about the free decisions that underlie so much of human behavior, nothing of the uniquely human subject-predicate juncture that marks the use of language (Ong, 1967:138–61), and nothing of the observance of incest prohibitions, which, although they have direct biological consequences, appear to be closely tied to the use of language (Wilden, 1972:16, 240–51, 269–73). All of these forms of human behavior, and others, transcend the biological, although they also tie in with it. They involve adversativeness in various ways and are given attention later in this book. Nevertheless, despite its limitations, sociobiology does provide insights into certain continuities, also treated later, between biology and human sociology that make possible a new understanding of human life in relation to nature (natura, birth, biological origin) more holistic in many ways than any other available.

Adversativeness in human beings has not only genetic sources but also conscious sources. Adversativeness can be cultivated. In fact, deliberate cultivation of the adversative lies at the deepest roots of intellectual development, particularly in the West. In his seminal work Polarity and Analogy (1966), G. E. R. Lloyd has shown that for ancient Greek thought, which has proved absolutely crucial to the development of thought and culture all over the world today, adversativeness was essential (as it is for Lloyd’s own thought: polarity itself refers to a form of adversativeness, and it is set up by Lloyd as an “adversative of analogy”)

Lloyd has surveyed series of opposites in selected indigenous cultures around the world (South America, Africa, North America) to situate the various ancient Greek series of opposites in a worldwide framework. He finds that the Greek opposites have no salient characteristics that differ from those of the others. The ancient Greeks simply reflected more on their adversatives and gradually reshaped them. The reasons are certainly connected with the effects of writing, which in its fixity shows up disparities in competing accounts that oral reporting tends to gloss over or adjust (Goody, 1968:56,67–68). Havelock (1978:9–10), quoting Oppenheim (1975) on the inhibiting, noncontrastive world view in ancient Mesopotamian cuneiform writing, attributes the Greeks’ predilection for sharp polarization precisely to their use of the alphabet. Cuneiform writing was nonalphabetic, basically pictographic. But other forces were also doubtless at work. Studying the origins of Greek social thought, Alvin W. Gouldner (1965: 43–55) has shown that the ancient Greek way of life was marked by (1) the quest for fame (fama, what people say about you, Latin fari, to speak—a deep concern of primary oral cultures, which are typically highly agonistic, as will be seen) through (2) personal action in (3) a contest system of operation setting person against person. Gouldner’s perspectives show how deep-set the adversative structures were in the Greek ethos.

In one way or another adversativeness may be deep-set in all cultures and personalities. Goody (1977:52–73, 146–62 and passim, in places citing Ong, 1958b) has provided a rich cross-cultural account of many of its manifestations and of its effects in the “domestication of the savage mind.” But the Greeks seem to have made more careful use of adversativeness than did other cultures, both as an analytic tool and as an operational intellectual procedure. Adversativeness sets the stage for the central Greek development that has changed the world, formal logic and all that goes with it. Formal logic, we know (Bochenski, 1961:10–18, 23–39, 417). did not grow out of a dispassionate or irenic setting such as the concept of logic itself might suggest—what could be more objective, neutral, uninvolved than logic? Rather, it grew out of reflection on disputation, on verbal and intellectual contest, on the question “How is it that what you say demolishes what I say?” Formal logic remains over the ages committed to diaeretic procedures, and it is no accident that formal logicians, past to present, have quite commonly proved to be disputatious people and not infrequently cantankerous (Durand, 1960:191–99, 453–55).

Indian logic, which never developed so far nor had so much global influence as the Greek, is the only formal logic in the world with any claims to have originated independently of Greek logic (Bochenski, 1961:416–17, 430–40), though it came into being so much later than Greek logic that one may have doubts about its total independence. In any event, it, too, arose from analysis of dispute, of adversativeness. By contrast, Chinese culture minimized dispute, thought of rhetoric as serving propriety and harmony, downplayed individual difference in favor of conformity (Oliver, 1971:145–81, esp. 180; cf, Maspero, 1928), and. despite its other stupendous achievements, produced nothing like formal logic at all.

When ancient Greek thought devoted itself to analogies or likenesses rather than to adversatives or contrasts, it proceeded by relentlessly noting differences or contrasts, as well as resemblances, within the analogies themselves. With logic, ancient Greece formalized adversativeness as no other culture had done. In so far as matter could be fully processed in logical format, it was resolvable into a clear-cut yes or no. The principle of the computer had been conceived, nonnegotiable binary opposition. Rhetoric, out of which formal logic grew, proceeds also by opposition, but by contrast with formal logic, rhetoric deals typically with soft oppositions. Rhetorical oppositions are negotiable.

Formal logic begins with analysis of extant thought processes. Mathematics begins with postulates. Of all forms of knowledge. it appears that only mathematics proceeds, at least in principle, without adversativeness. The reason is clear: whatever could be argued about is deactivated in postulates or definitions. “A straight line is the shortest distance between two points.” To propose as a mathematical starting point a definition such as this, or a postulate, is to say in effect: Let us agree at the outset on “short” and “distance” and “between.” These things we could argue about, because in fact they are very difficult, and in some cases impossible, to define adequately. But we w...

Table of contents

• Preface
• PART ONE. BACKGROUNDS
• PART TWO. PATTERNS OF ADVERSATJVENESS
• PART THREE. PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
• References