Process Philosophy, Bonded Communities, and the Possibility of Healthy Rivalries
Process philosophers and many others like to use the phrase "relationality." Indeed, process philosophers sometimes speak of themselves as process-relational philosophers. Typically the word is important to them because it serves as an antidote to ideas of hyper-individualism: that is, to the idea that human selves are skin-encapsulated egos, cut off from the world by the boundaries of their skin, whose primary aim in life is, and must be, private fulfillment at the expense of relations with others.
In the abstract, for many process philosophers, "relationality" has a warm and fuzzy feel to it, almost like a bromide. But when we truly look at relationality in action, we see it taking the form of the understandable desire for "bonded community" with others and the sense of belonging such community offers. We also see that the desire—a desire for connection, for relations—can bring with it dichotomies between "us" and "them," because this dichotomy makes possible a sense of "us" as a bonded community.
Two places where such a desire surfaces in contemporary society are partisan politics and competitive sports, and in the phenomenon of fandom in both areas. Fandom is a word names the passionate enthusiasm and sense of belonging people experience as supporters of a team, celebrity, or political figure. In both politics and sports, fandom exemplifies the deep human desire for connection and relational identity. Fans often come together in a shared community, united by a sense of loyalty and common purpose. However, fandom also reveals some of the tensions within relationality—it draws boundaries between "us" and "them," generating solidarity within the group while often fostering exclusion, rivalry, and even hostility toward outsiders.
In sports, for instance, fans rally behind their team, wearing specific colors, chanting familiar songs, and engaging in collective rituals that reinforce their identity. These practices foster a sense of bonded community, providing fans with a sense of meaning and belonging. Yet, the same energy that builds community can also lead to animosity toward rival teams and their supporters, resulting in conflicts and antagonism.
Similarly, in politics, fandom manifests in the form of intense loyalty to parties, candidates, or ideologies. People not only identify with their chosen group but also define themselves in opposition to those who belong to the "other" side. Political fandom can create tight-knit communities of shared belief, giving participants a sense of belonging. However, it can also exacerbate polarization, turning disagreements into personal conflicts and fostering a sense of division between "us" and "them."
This dual nature of relationality—both nurturing connection and creating division—reveals that relationships are not inherently harmonious. They carry within them the potential for both solidarity and separation. Process-relational philosophy acknowledges this tension, emphasizing that genuine relationality requires navigating these dynamics with care. It calls for a form of connection that remains open, fluid, and non-coercive, avoiding rigid boundaries that turn others into enemies.
The challenge, then, is to foster relationality that embraces diversity without succumbing to exclusivity. In this way, relationality becomes a practice of building community without erecting barriers, cultivating belonging without defining identity solely in opposition to others. Process-relational philosophers suggest that the way forward involves developing communities that honor difference, allowing people to connect meaningfully across boundaries without erasing the individuality or uniqueness of others.
Perhaps one place to begin is to recognize the connections between competitive sports and partisan politics, realizing how powerful both are.
Emotional Attachment: Fans develop a deep emotional connection to their team, party, or leader, making these affiliations integral to their sense of identity. Wins are experienced as personal victories, while losses feel like personal setbacks.
Community and Social Connection: Fandom creates a sense of belonging. Whether tailgating at a stadium or attending political rallies, fans gather in shared spaces to celebrate their collective identity. Online communities also play a significant role in sustaining fandom, fostering ongoing discussions and content creation.
Rituals and Symbolism: Both sports and political fandoms engage in rituals, such as chanting, waving flags, or wearing distinctive colors. Symbols—like mascots, campaign logos, and slogans—reinforce the unity and identity of the fanbase.
Tribalism and Rivalry: Rivalry is central to fandom. Sports fans celebrate victories over opposing teams, and political supporters revel in the defeat of rival parties or ideologies. This dynamic fosters intense competition and can lead to animosity between opposing groups.
Narrative Construction: Fans actively participate in constructing narratives that lend meaning to the actions of their team or political movement. Stories of underdog victories, injustices, and legendary figures help build a shared mythology that strengthens group identity.
Active Participation: Fandom encourages involvement beyond passive observation. In sports, this may mean attending games, analyzing plays, or supporting athletes online. In politics, participation can take the form of canvassing, campaigning, debating, and advocating for policies.
Identity Work: Fandom offers an outlet for escaping the complexities of daily life and provides a framework for self-expression. Through fandom, individuals align themselves with something larger than themselves, shaping their personal identity and finding meaning in belonging.
Here's the point. People now engage with politics not merely as a civic duty but as a way to express their identity and feel connected to a larger cause. This shift has both positive and negative implications. On one hand, fandom fosters community and participation. On the other, it can fuel polarization and tribalism, where loyalty to one's side becomes more important than facts, dialogue, or compromise.
Constructive Competition as Relational Play
To address the tensions inherent in relationality—connection and division, solidarity and separation—it is essential to cultivate constructive competition as a relational practice. This builds on the idea that both competitive sports and partisan politics can be platforms for meaningful connection and community, while also acknowledging their potential to divide. Rather than suppressing competition altogether, the aim is to reframe it within a process-relational framework: as a form of playful engagement that fosters growth, dialogue, and mutual respect, even amid rivalry.
In this view, competition becomes not an end in itself but a means of creative interaction between individuals and communities. Just as athletes push each other toward excellence in sports, and political movements challenge each other toward better governance, competition can serve as a catalyst for shared flourishing. Here are three principles for cultivating constructive competition in relational ways:
Mutual Flourishing as the Goal Constructive competition emphasizes that the goal is not to dominate or eliminate the other, but to mutually challenge each other toward growth and improvement. Success is redefined not as triumph over others, but as the enhancement of collective well-being. In sports, this might look like celebrating the skills and sportsmanship of opponents, recognizing that their excellence brings out the best in everyone. In politics, it means valuing dialogue over division—seeking to understand differing viewpoints and collaborating where possible, even in disagreement.
Rituals of Respect and Reciprocity
Just as sports include rituals—such as handshakes after a match or respectful applause—constructive competition involves symbolic practices that affirm mutual respect and shared humanity. Political disagreements can be reframed as opportunities for dialogue where participants agree to listen deeply and engage constructively. Rituals of respect remind us that, even in opposition, we are connected by a shared social fabric. These practices honor the individuality of all participants, preventing competition from devolving into enmity.
Playfulness and Improvisation
Drawing on the improvisational spirit that lies at the heart of process philosophy, constructive competition embraces playfulness as an essential element. Competition need not be rigid or zero-sum; instead, it can involve moments of spontaneity, humor, and creativity. Like jazz musicians improvising together, participants in constructive competition engage dynamically, responding to each other with curiosity and openness. This playfulness allows for adaptive strategies, new insights, and the possibility of unexpected collaboration.
A Vision of Relational Play: Beyond “Us vs. Them”
In this model, competition becomes an avenue for relational play rather than tribal conflict. It acknowledges that people need connection and challenge, but it reframes these needs in ways that foster inclusion rather than exclusion. Relational play is fluid, non-coercive, and oriented toward collective becoming. It honors difference while creating space for meaningful connection—offering a middle path between hyper-individualism and tribalism.
Process-relational philosophy suggests that all relationships, including competitive ones, are dynamic and evolving. A healthy relational competition is one in which boundaries between “us” and “them” remain permeable, inviting participants to learn from each other and, when necessary, to change their minds. It promotes a sense of identity rooted not in opposition but in participation—whether on the field, in the voting booth, or within a larger community of shared purpose.
A Call to Compete with Care
The challenge, then, is not to eliminate competition but to cultivate it as a constructive force. This requires intentional practices that emphasize respect, reciprocity, and mutual growth. It invites individuals and communities to engage with difference playfully and creatively, recognizing that the other—whether an opposing team, political rival, or ideological adversary—is not merely a threat but also a potential partner in the unfolding drama of life. In the end, constructive competition, grounded in relationality, invites us to see rivalry not as a struggle for dominance but as an opportunity for connection, learning, and transformation. Just as athletes push each other toward excellence, and political adversaries can inspire more just solutions, we can engage in competition in ways that deepen our relational bonds rather than fracture them. Through this lens, competition becomes not a threat to relationality but a way of realizing it—a dynamic interplay where all participants are invited to co-create a richer, more connected world.
- Jay McDaniel with help from Open AI
Basking in Reflected Glory/ Cutting off Reflected Failure
"Most of us are happy to express our support by cheering loudly and engaging in what psychologists call BIRGing, or ‘basking in reflected glory’. To BIRG is to make a show of your association with a successful team, despite having played no role in its achievement. The term was coined in the 1970s by the psychologist Robert Cialdini, who noticed that the number of students wearing clothing bearing their university’s name or logo on US campuses increased after the college football team had won. A win always makes supporters feel good, and the students wanted in on the action. Inevitably, they were far less keen to fly their team’s flag after a defeat, preferring to hide their allegiance. Psychologists have an acronym for that, too – they call it CORFing, or ‘cutting off reflected failure’. At first glance, BIRGing and CORFing seem like behavioural traits you might expect of fair-weather fans. Yet they stem from a psychological imperative we all possess: to maintain a positive sense of our own self-worth. We all want to feel good about ourselves. Being part of a group – sharing a history, a purpose, an identity – gives you that. When your team wins, you win. The more invested you are, the bigger the emotional pay-off. As we’ve seen, that cuts both ways: when a team loses, die-hard fans suffer the most. In Fever Pitch, Hornby confesses that his misery at Arsenal’s misfortunes could reach ‘monstrous, terrifying proportions’. Die-hard fans never abandon their club, so how do they restore their shattered self-esteem? They take the only option available to them: dig in, reaffirm their loyalty, draw ever closer to their group, sling obscenities at opposing fans and remind each other that suffering breeds resilience. In a survey of clubs in the English Premier League between 2003 and 2013, Newson found that fans of Hull, the least successful team, reported the greatest number of social ties, a measure of close psychological kinship (fans of Chelsea, one of the most successful teams, reported the fewest). Winning is important, but belonging is everything."
Bond, Michael. Fans: A Journey into the Psychology of Belonging (pp. 26-27). Pan Macmillan. Kindle Edition.