Read No Contest for Free Online

that we must always work within the confines of what we are given. After all, if alternative models really were workable, we would already be using them.
    Appeals to realism have the virtue of allowing you to avoid messy discussions about the value of a critic’s position (and thus of the status quo). Why bother with such issues when you can dismiss his vision as “well-meaning but unworkable”? Challenging the rightness of what he is proposing will only slow him down; it is the appeal to practicality that produces the knockout. Call someone wrongheaded or even evil and a lengthy discussion may follow. Call him utopian or naive and there is nothing more to be said. 15 This method of dismissing models of change is uniquely effective since it sets up a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people insist that an alternative arrangement cannot work, they will be right. Its failure then can be cited as substantiation of one’s original skepticism. No one uses this maneuver more skillfully than policymakers who are mistrustful of public institutions. Because of their conviction that governments can do nothing right, they divert funds from public schools and hospitals. When the inevitable crisis develops, they say, “You see?”
    Appeals to realism can insure that institutions which threaten to promote social change (e.g., legislative bodies, universities, the media) do nothing but reflect the status quo. In the name of democracy, descriptive accuracy, and objective journalism, respectively, these institutions can be tamed and made into powerful instruments for perpetuating whatever is in place. Here, to take a tiny example, is
New York Times
education writer Fred Hechinger:
    Â 
Regrettably, the importance of the “message” has also invaded children’s television. . . . [One] episode of “The Flintstones,” a favorite children’s cartoon, had a hotly contested baseball game end in a tie, followed by celebrations of brotherly and sisterly love—hardly the real aim in any normal child’s view of competitive games. 16
    Â 
    This exemplary criticism should be studied carefully. Hechinger is demonstrating how to dismiss as inappropriate any scenario that does not conform to the existing values and structures of our society. To challenge our current practices is idealistic and, worse, contains a “message.” To reinforce our current practices is realistic and contains no message. Most children’s programs do not offend Hechinger because they display, and thereby shape, “normal” people—i.e., those who are intent on winning at any cost.
    5. R ATIONALIZE: It is easier for critics to oppose existing institutions when those who defend and profit from them are obviously opposed to social change. You can make it more difficult for these critics—and salve your own conscience at the same time—by claiming that your real reason for acting as you do is to “change the system from within.” Like most people who talk this way, of course, you do not actually have to
make
change. On the contrary, even if this really were your goal, you would be permitted to work only for insignificant reforms that never come close to challenging the structures themselves. By becoming part of these structures, you can proceed to seek personal aggrandizement while at the same time contributing your talents to something you profess to find problematic. (A variation 011 this maneuver is to claim that you are going to do so for only a short time—as if it were a simple matter to leave the fast lane and get over to the exit ramp.) If you are audacious enough, you can even rationalize your participation as the
most effective
way to change the system. The more people who accept this reasoning and follow your example, the more secure is that system.
    Â 
    TOWARD A NONCOMPETITIVE SOCIETY
    Â 
    Whether employed deliberately or not, these mechanisms for frustrating