Olympism would like us to compete in respect and friendship while aiming for excellence. Léon and Summer, king and queen of the Paris Games, embody these values.
Posted at 4:00 p.m.
Denis Soulières Hematologist and medical oncologist
The Olympic Games, despite the commercial drift, are a collective meeting, to embody living together with each medal, catching our breath with the athletes who have given everything for a personal, national, world record. These weeks of Olympics gave us the opportunity to reconnect and jointly feel the creative and progressive capacity of humanity… for a few moments.
Winning, for many, resonates in the angry words of Jacques Mercier, coach of the National played by Yvan Ponton in Throw and count. Win, for the right or wrong reasons. That’s the only thing that matters.
Once the Olympic cycle is over, the idealized quest for excellence in good spirit evaporates at the speed of the 100 meters. Are the billions devoted to training Greek gods and building stadiums to see them exhibit their art a bad investment, man being easily inclined to denigrate, to win at the expense of others, to provoke vile reactions rather than to be satisfied with participating?
This competition is infiltrating more of our daily lives. Reality shows, driven by the desire to eliminate the competitor, by any means, consciously, voluntarily, receive the accolade in the television ratings. It is not without reason, without consequence. This “entertainment” multiplies, crushes programming aimed at understanding, improving and enhancing our society.
Winning in public service
Is this drift infiltrating the public service? It is no longer enough to win elections, but to knock out your political opponent. Attribute the winning of ideas to an individual, a party. Promote division rather than the search for the common good. It is no longer important to present ideas and opinions, but to exhibit them to the point of demonizing anyone who thinks otherwise. Brilliant representation in American politics now coloring the world, in the middle of an Olympic year.
Transpartisan achievements are now exceptions. Political analysts disfavor political jousting, expressing themselves in hyperbole, accentuating conflicts and the toga effects of fiery declarations. Along with reality television, political coverage has deviated due to the vogue for reporting conflicts by excessively personalizing them.
The analysis of increasingly complex issues is therefore often reduced to an epithet imposing a view rather than initiating constructive debates.
Like this, major negotiations (health, education, etc.) quickly become public by designating good and bad rather than issues worth dwelling on and thinking about calmly. Each party claims gains and setbacks rather than concerted solutions.
Win in science?
In a pandemic, science has been glorified and proclaimed as a way out of the doldrums. But science, via its constituents, is not flawless, modulated by human failings preventing it from progressing as it should. The race for grants and scientific advances considerably reduces collaboration. Data sharing remains restricted for fear of losing control and the glorification that accompanies a prestigious publication.
Patents put even tighter blinders on the dissemination of knowledge that could advance humanity more quickly. Certainly, competition encourages creativity to produce faster and better. In many areas, collaboration would make progress more quickly.
Scientists must live daily under the yoke of “ publish or perish » which moves away from the scientific ideal in favor of a machine for producing publishable data.
Let’s think about the field of cancer. Despite noble objectives, the divergent interests of various groups mean that we sometimes repeat the same mistakes, not knowing that they were made previously. Novelty is often imitated to gain financial advantage, particularly in the area of therapy development, avoiding risky investments in time and resources on a different innovative avenue. In particular, the pride of presenting new results is not without effect in research management. Major congresses and learned societies request exclusivity for the presentation of new results, scientific journals request the publication of new data to the detriment of negative experiments which are as informative as studies deemed positive.
Winning in science is not as pejorative as in sports or reality TV. Despite the search for excellence, this field still has to do to serve as an example, to exhibit collaboration and recognition beyond the competition. Because winning in oncology and medicine should be demonstrated in years of life gained despite illness, in reduction of symptoms caused by cancer, in life options or medical assistance in dying. Not in defeat against cancer, not in victory for medicine. It is up to man to appreciate human action that goes beyond the confrontation, competition and conflicts that clutter our daily lives, our past.
Excellence formerly served as a title for the aristocracy. Excellence is now embodied in merit and is accessible to everyone through their competence. Émile Durkheim, a French sociologist instilling that society is more than each of its parts, wrote: “Reflection is, par excellence, the antagonistic force of routine, and routine is the obstacle to necessary progress. » It is to be hoped that in order to progress together, everyone sees winning not as a defeat for the other, but as a way to better collaborate, in sports, in politics, in science, in society. To combat the routine of our instincts for the benefit of excellence that our society does not place enough emphasis on.
What do you think? Participate in the dialogue
