Sumber ilustrasi: Magnific
16 Mei 2026 14.39 WIB – Akar
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Desanomia [16.05.2026] When the word “competition” appears, some of us may begin to frown: why must competition be spoken of so excessively? Is it really true that the world is organized through competition? Is competition not ultimately a path for removing others? What moral teaching justifies one side pushing another aside, even through mechanisms considered rational, professional, or academic? Have you ever imagined the atmosphere inside a boxing ring, where in one corner there is celebration, cameras, applause, and attention directed toward the winner, while in the other corner someone quietly endures pain, perhaps bleeding slightly, alone, silent, and defeated? Is that atmosphere not also present in many other forms of competition, even the most prestigious ones?
Do you ever feel this way? Do you feel that a certain form of injustice operates quietly and normally beneath everyday life? Do you feel that perhaps it should not be “competition” that is constantly elevated and discussed, but rather “togetherness”? Yet in reality, the word competition appears far more dominantly within public discourse. What does this mean? Do you have your own understanding of the word “together”? How would you explain it if someone asked you to describe its meaning? Is your view similar to—or completely different from—the following reflection?
Perhaps it is useful to use the same framework previously used to explain competition (see Competing, Desanomia, 16 May 2026) in order to describe the meaning of togetherness. In that sense, togetherness can generally be understood as a condition in which two or more subjects exist within a relationship of interconnectedness, such that the existence, actions, or possibilities of each are not primarily understood as reducing the others, but rather as forming part of a connection that enables collective survival, formation, or achievement. At its core, two or more parties join hands in facing reality and/or in pursuing a shared goal.
From this meaning, it can be said that togetherness requires three main elements: the existence of more than one subject, the existence of a relationship connecting those subjects, and the existence of a space of possibilities created or sustained reciprocally. Without reciprocal relations, togetherness loses its basis of existence. It becomes clear that these three elements stand in contrast to what makes competition possible.
From there, several meanings emerge. First, togetherness may be understood as existing within the same shared space. In this sense, human beings are together because they inhabit the same world, environment, society, or history. Second, togetherness may be understood as collective action, namely a condition in which several parties move toward something that cannot be achieved alone. Third, togetherness may be understood as interdependence, because human life from the beginning depends upon others: language, family, knowledge, food, protection, and culture do not emerge from isolated individuals. Fourth, togetherness may be understood as the recognition that the existence of others is not primarily a threat, but rather a condition for the continuity of a shared world.
What immediately appears from all of this? That the deeper meaning of togetherness is not simply “gathering together,” but rather a condition of mutual enabling. The essence of togetherness is not physical closeness, but relationships that allow each existence to continue, grow, or gain meaning. Togetherness is therefore relational and co-constitutive: subjects do not merely coexist side by side, but are partly formed through their interconnectedness with others.
From this point, it becomes clear that human life is actually far closer to togetherness than to competition. No human being is born alone, speaks alone, builds knowledge alone, or survives alone. Language itself is the product of togetherness. Knowledge is the accumulation of collective effort. Cities are built together. Even personal identity is formed through relationships with others. Togetherness, therefore, is not a secondary addition after individuals already exist, but rather the very condition that allows individuals to become individuals.
Within families, togetherness works through shared roles, care, and protection. A child survives not because of competition, but because of nurturing. Parents do not treat children as rivals for position, but as part of the continuity of shared life. From this, it becomes visible that many of the most fundamental dimensions of human existence emerge from non-competitive relations.
Within science, togetherness operates through the accumulation and transmission of knowledge. A scientist never truly starts from zero, but from knowledge built by previous generations. Scientific language, methods, data, and theories are products of humanity’s long collective effort. Even when scientists appear to “compete,” knowledge itself continues to grow through shared structures that allow exchange, correction, and collaboration.
Within the economy, togetherness works through networks of interdependence. Farmers, workers, distributors, drivers, technicians, merchants, and consumers all exist within chains that mutually sustain one another. No side truly stands alone. Even the largest corporations depend upon labor, public infrastructure, social stability, and markets collectively maintained by society. In this sense, the modern economy resembles a network of interconnectedness more than a pure arena of competition.
In everyday social relations, togetherness works through trust. Friendships, communities, organizations, and societies can only survive when there exists some level of trust that others are not just threats. When trust collapses, relationships become permanent tension. Togetherness is therefore not only about being present together, but about sharing a common horizon of life.
Yet it is interesting that the word “together” appears far less dominantly than the word “competition” in the modern world. One possible reason is that modern society more easily notices competitive movement than structures of interconnectedness. Competition appears dramatic: winners, losers, rankings, rivalry, conflict. Togetherness, by contrast, often works silently in the background and is treated as normal or invisible. People more easily notice companies competing than the millions of people who quietly make everyday life possible for one another.
In addition, the modern world is built upon the logic of position and growth. Nations pursue competitiveness, corporations pursue market share, individuals pursue careers and status. Within such a structure, people are taught more often to see others as comparisons of position rather than as participants in a shared existence. As a result, the language of competition becomes central in public discourse, while togetherness is often reduced to moral slogans or sentimental ideals.
Yet when examined more deeply, competition itself is only possible upon certain foundations of togetherness. Markets require shared rules. The language of competition requires shared meaning. Nations require shared stability. Even sports competitions require collectively agreed rules of the game. In this sense, togetherness is more fundamental than competition, because competition itself can only occur within a shared world that already supports it.
What do you think? (njd)
Note: This article was made as part of a dedicated effort to bring everyday life around us to our minds.
