A veritable tinge of excitement runs through us when we hear the words “and the Oscar goes to . . .” or when we await the results of a close Olympic track event. Yet we need to take a closer look at these “competitions” and question whether they make any sense.
In the case of performing arts awards, such as the Oscars or the Tonys, the notion of a competition strikes me as absurd. Comparing the quality of different works of art is not much different from comparing the proverbial apples and oranges for a number of reasons. To begin with, each work of art should stand on its own merit, and it really is impossible to compare them in any meaningful way. These are highly subjective decisions and pretending that they are objective in some way is patently ridiculous. I may prefer comedies, while someone else may prefer dramas. A given film or show might resonate with some people for personal reasons, but fall flat for others. Who says that the academies that decide on these awards are entitled to make these calls, just because they are comprised of people who work in the industry? Works of art are created for an audience after all. Moreover, while a given nominee may receive the most votes, it is very possible that the nominee may have received fewer votes than its competitors put together.
The competitive nature of awards like the Oscars not only distorts artistic merit but also commercializes art. These awards become more about marketing and financial success than about genuine artistic achievement. For instance, a film that wins an Oscar or a show that wins a Tony is almost guaranteed to see a surge in box office sales, which creates a feedback loop where studios invest in projects specifically designed to win awards rather than to push artistic boundaries. This contributes to the homogenization of mainstream media, as many films follow familiar formulas and cater to what is perceived as “award-worthy.”
Another critical issue is the role of politics in awards decisions. Historically, both artistic awards and rankings have been criticized for being biased — either in terms of the judges’ preferences or in systemic ways like underrepresentation of certain groups (e.g., gender, race). Even if a genuine comparison of two performances were possible (which, as I have argued, it is not), there would still be the lingering problem of subjective human judgment tainted by cultural biases and power structures.
A better way to recognize artistic achievement would be to honor works that have reached a certain caliber of excellence and eschew the competitive aspects of the awards. But, of course, the public likes there to be a winner and enjoys the tension and excitement that come with one work or performance dominating over its competitors and doesn’t mind that the others go home with nothing more than a memory of their having been nominated. While I doubt very much that the producers of these award shows, which are already struggling for ratings, will ever move away from their competitive structure, the effort to reform them should nevertheless continue in the hopes that someday these awards will be rendered more sensible and meaningful.
In a similar vein are the ludicrous and useless rankings of colleges and other institutions, such as U.S. News and World Report’s annual ranking of colleges. First, like works of art, undertaking a purportedly objective and meaningful ranking of colleges and similar institutions is futile. While you may be able to say that certain aspects of a school (such as an academic department) are superior to others in some cases, in many cases there is no objective way to rank many of the constituent parts of schools. For example, while instructors may be ranked (to some extent) on the basis of their credentials and publications, it is important to recognize that academic fame does not necessarily translate into teaching talent. Furthermore, what is a priority for one student may be of no importance to another. Thus, for the student who prefers a rural campus, that an urban school may be higher in the rankings would be of little importance. Likewise, for a student who is looking to go into public interest work, that the graduates of another school earn more money because a large portion go to Wall Street firms or other high-paying employers is of no importance (and may actually be undesirable for them in their view).
The ranking systems for colleges and universities, while seemingly objective, often reflect broader societal priorities that are disconnected from the actual needs and experiences of students. For instance, schools with higher endowments and larger alumni networks are typically ranked higher, which perpetuates inequality in access to education. It also forces institutions to focus on metrics that boost rankings, such as alumni donations or graduation rates, at the expense of focusing on providing a well-rounded education tailored to individual student needs. This commercialization of education turns students into customers and institutions into brands, diminishing the value of education as a transformative, intellectual pursuit. It is for these reasons that certain schools are opting not to participate in the rankings. I say more power to them!
Finally, there are sporting events, such as the Olympics, which I recently have been tuning into. That a runner may win gold because they finished five one-thousandths of a second ahead of another athlete is ridiculous. Does it really make sense that when athletes finish with such close times to say that one athlete was better? In a fetish with the notion of an objective, precise determination of who is the winner, the judges deliberate and officiate over ridiculously slim margins, which assume that all other aspects of the race were equal and that the timers are able to distinguish between such close results. The miniscule time differences between medalists we are sometimes seeing in events are meaningless and should not determine who wins gold. Given the role of luck or uncontrollable variables (e.g., weather conditions, starting positions) in these close races, the significance placed on these margins seems arbitrary. In such cases, we should acknowledge the fallibility of measuring performance so precisely and the meaninglessness of placing such athletes on different award podiums and just let the athletes share the medal. (It is my understanding that sharing a medal is the approach taken in some sports, such as swimming.)
One final, absurd type of measurement I will mention is the notion of weighing of souls at death (if you believe in that sort of thing). This is a central doctrine of Christianity, which holds that Jesus weighs the good a person did during their life against the evil things they did and comes up with a determination of whether the person was good and will proceed to heaven or was evil and will go to a much hotter place. (In the interests of brevity and simplicity, I will leave out mention of the possibility of being sent to purgatory.) The notion of weighing souls at death suggests a perfect binary moral system — good versus evil — which does not reflect the complex and nuanced reality of human lives and moral behavior. Many ethical decisions are not black and white, and people are rarely all good or all evil. Even if Jesus is imbued with God’s “perfection,” such a determination is impossible to make, and the either/or nature of the result makes little sense in this case and, I would suggest, is even an offense to the proper notion of spiritual justice.
The assumption that one work of art, one institution, or one athlete can be definitively “better” than others ignores the multiplicity of factors that contribute to greatness. In essence, the problem with these awards, rankings, and judgments is that they reduce complex, multifaceted human achievements to simplistic, hierarchical measures. Whether it’s a work of art, a university, an athlete, or a soul, the attempt to impose a binary judgment fails to capture the rich diversity and complexity of human experience. Instead of reducing everything to a competition, we might consider embracing the idea that multiple forms of excellence can coexist without needing to be ranked or compared.
