Let's bear in mind here that the main point at the origin of this thread wasn't competition versus collaboration, or exercise versus obesity, but the disheartening (but entirely typical) downgrading of musical and artistic activities in schools by Brown in his speech. I had thought at the time that the Thatcher gang represented a low point in philistinism, but they have been greatly outdone by their successors.

Having said that, I think that the argument for competitiveness in school as a preparation for the competitiveness found in the "outside world" is a dangerous one. For a start, almost everything in schools is competitive these days anyway. This is not a preparation but (deliberately? I wonder) an insurance policy to secure the perpetuation of the "competitive spirit" which is the cosmeticised face of the incitement to self-centredness and greed which is at the centre of our society (and capitalist society in general). If there's ever going to be any change for the better it will come about as a result of cooperation rather than competition. Therefore I think competitiveness in all its forms ought really to be discouraged, in so far as it can be. Giving of one's best in whatever discipline is one thing; trying to be "better than the others" is another.

Could the various people preaching against all forms of competitiveness put hand on heart and say they have never been competitively motivated themselves? Furthermore, have the results of the latter always been for the worse?

(I don't see competitiveness as a particularly positive thing, by the way, but do believe it is such a deeply-rooted aspect of many societies that it needs to be addressed honestly, and if possible harnessed positively rather than negatively. And I'd be very surprised if competitive urges would disappear in a society based on collective rather than private ownership.)

I think this is a very attractive, as well as a wonderfully put, definition of politics (thanks for reinstating it, GG!).

Yes, on second thoughts I don't think this was really my reason at all for speaking up in defence of competition. I certainly hope that what I was advocating doesn't have to equate to the training of the population to become football hooligans, as some other posters have suggested. I'm just very aware that there's a certain sort of child who is not done any favours by being allowed to indulge their naturally antisocial instincts, and a certain amount of what I might term 'social jousting' can be a useful and in the long run reasonably painless corrective. That's the sort of 'preparation for the outside world' I had in mind.

Since I first heard the phrase I've been deeply in love with what I think was Harold Mabern's comment about 'competition without animosity'. I suppose my choice of a jazz-related phrase might reinforce other posters' advocacy of music over sport, but I think the phrase can be reapplied. Whatever others say, I do retain my sense that being pushed just a little bit harder to join in the football at school would have been good for me in the long run. I also think, with all respect to Mary and others, that advocating ballet for all would be unfair to more schoolchildren than advocating football/rounders/netball/tennis for all.

If "competition" were merely a striving towards the highest standards, this wouldn't be at all suspect, and would represent good educational practice.

But what happens in "PE" is not about that.  The "victory" of the fittest is only a victory relative to the humiliation of those who aren't paid-up members of the Bob Cherry and Harry Wharton team.  Of course, it's the Bob Cherrys and Harry Whartons who become House Captains, Head Boys, Team Captains etc,  establishing a precedent that whilst classroom work is very laudable, REAL achievement in schools (and by extension in the outside world they claim to mirror) is measured by sporting success alone.  

These claims have been made more overtly in the past:

Totally agree with Richard's substantial post.  I would add, though, that human beings are, by and large, naturally competitive, so the need to 'foster' a competitive spirit via the education system is a largely redundant one, I'd say.

But then, Gordon Brown is a hack bourgeois economist, rather than a hack bourgeois anthropologist or sociologist, so perhaps we shouldn't expect such insights from him.

In that case I simply reiterate (and possibly need to clarify) that I believe it would be good if team-based sport could be disentangled from the public school and associated unpleasant social implications it obviously has for Reiner and others, rather than abandoned completely.

And yes, in case it needs saying, I'd like similar provision for arts-based activities in schools. I think my own background possibly leads me, by a 'grass is greener' sort of logic, to underemphasise this.

The Hitlerjugend was itself based on principles of mutual co-operation and comradeship amongst its members, with the denial of individualism in favour of the collective notion of the Volk, of course united against all those who stood outside - but that is perhaps an inevitable consequence of all groups founded upon principles of conformity and de-individualism, which breed dissidents, as was true in the Stalinist culture of Eastern Europe as well. Hitlerjugend member Hans Wolf wrote the following story in 1938, called 'Comradeship', as part of a school primer:

It was a hot day and we had far to march. The sun was burning down on the heath, which was bereft of trees. The sand was glistening, I was tired. My feet were hurting in those new walking shoes, every step was hurting and all I could think about was rest, water, and shade. I clenched my teeth to keep walking. I was the youngest, and this was my first outing. In front of me strode Rudolf, the leader. He was tall and strong. His backpack was heavy and pressed down on his shoulders. Rudolf carried the bread for us six boys, the cooking pot, and a pile of books, from which he would read us wonderfully thrilling stories, at night in the hostel. My backpack only contained a shirt, a couple of sneakers, washing utensils, and some cooking gear, apart from a tarpaulin for rainy days and straw beds. And yet I thought  could not lug this backpack any longer. My comrades all were somewhat older and had camping experience. they hardly felt the heat and hardship of the march. Every now and then they would sigh and drink lukewarm coffee from their canteens. More and more, I remained behind, even though I tried to make up for my slack by running. Suddenly Rudolf turned around. He stopped and watched me crawling up to him from a distance, while our comrades continued in the direction of a few trees on the horizon. 'Tired?' Rudolf asked me, kindly. Ashamed, I had to say yes. Slowly, we walked side by side. I was limping. But I did not want to let on to Rudolf. When we got to a juniper bush, the leader sat down and said: 'For a little rest!' Relieved, I threw myself down. I did not want to talk, for I was shy. Rudolf gave me something to drink. I thianked him and leaned back comfortably, glad to be able to stretch my aching feet, and before I knew it I was sleeping . . . When we resumed our march, my feet hurt much less and my backpack did not press down on me so. I was very glad about that. (Cited in Michael Kater - Hitler Youth, pp, 13-14)

To see the ethos of the Hitlerjugend, or for that matter wider fascist ideology, primarily in terms of competitive individualism, is a mistake.

My refererence to the Hitlerjugend relates to prioritising physical fitness above intellectual achievement.  The Nazi concept of the Herrenvolk arose from a wilful misreading of Nietzche's concept of the "Ubermensch".  The primacy of place given to physical training, and public displays of "calisthenics" illustrate the pride the Reich took in such matters.  Since most of the leading Nazis were intellectual underachievers, the image of the "military martinette" was obviously attractive to them.  It remains attractive to world leaders today.

[Edit]
It may also be useful to append apposite traits which define a fascist state (as per Umberto Eco's definitions of Ur-Fascism in his piece "Eternal Fascism" (New York Review Of Books 1995).

- "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dicatates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection (this can be seen as a resulting "benefit" of anti-intellectualism.  This is frequently manifested in political attacks upon scientific research, viz denying that Global Warming is a verifiable phenomenon etc).
- "Disagreement is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
- "Pacifism is Trafficking With the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.

All of these accord with a need to build-up and maintain a "fighting force" of tough, hardened men whose intellectual capabilities are of little or no importance.

As a social bynote, it is worth noting that in more than one of the recent "school shooting" incidents in America, the assailants have been those who were sidelined in sports or deliberately and actively humiliated by the school sports faculty.  The "sports jocks" were the primary target of the shootings.  As an example of the social divisiveness of sports programmes in schools, this seems quite pertinent?

My own view is that sports have no place in schools.  None at all.  They are on the curriculum purely for the pathetic and putrid glory-seeking of Principals, Headmasters, and others, who need to see other educational establishments rubbed into the dirt at rugby, football, hockey etc for their own self-aggrandisement.  Educational value = 0.