Vilnius University Faculty of Philology Department of English Philology. Raminta Rimkienė

Transcription

1 Vilnius University Faculty of Philology Department of English Philology Raminta Rimkienė The Theme of Stupidity in Kurt Vonnegut s Novel Cat s Cradle Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of BA in English Philology Supervisor: Assist. Eimantė Liubertaitė 2017

2 Contents Abstract. 1. Introduction.. 2. Defining stupidity 2.1 Stupidity as a corrupted process of learning. 2.2 Causes of stupidity 2.3 Stupidity as an amorphous phenomenon The power of stupidity.. 3. Stupidity in Cat s Cradle 3.1 Technology and stupidity. 3.2 Religion and stupidity.. 4. Conclusions. 5. References... Summary in Lithuanian.. 2

3 Abstract Cat s Cradle, the fourth novel by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., has been analysed from many different angles by a number of scholars. Yet, little research has been done on the prevailing topic of ignorance of people and the unwitting society in which they reside and act. Thus, the present paper focuses on exploring the theme of stupidity revealed in the novel. The aim of this paper is to analyse the seemingly essential and fundamental components of Cat s Cradle - ignorance, dumbfoundedness, and the limits of reason of mankind, by applying the concepts of stupidity that were defined and developed by such prominent scholars as Ronell, Sternberg, Welles, and Livraghi. The research explicates the reasons which attest the history of human stupidity and the disability of society to cope with the obviously overwhelming forces of science and religion. 3

4 1. Introduction Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. ( ) evidently remains one of the biggest and prominent names in postmodern literature. During his literary career, he has produced fourteen novels and hundreds of short stories, which witness a close relationship between his biography and his literary productions. After he dropped out from the University of Cornell in 1943, Vonnegut was inducted into the United States Army and sent to Europe, where he was captured by the Germans in the Battle of the Buldge in Later on, he survived the bombing of Dresden, which was, as he put it, the greatest massacre in European history (in Allen 2009:56). Living in and facing a post-war world, Vonnegut chose to adapt to inevitable changes, stating that laughter and tears are both responses to frustration and exhaustion. I myself prefer to laugh, since there is less cleaning up to do afterward (in Bercovitch 1999:104). He equipped his writings with black humour, satire, parody, absurdity and at last found his way of writing about the unthinkable - events that surpass the limits of realism (Ibid. p. 104). His fourth novel, Cat s Cradle (1963), lays the groundwork for this research and employs Vonnegut s judgement of an unwitting and ignorant manhood and the society it resides and acts in. Cat s Cradle deals with The day the world ended (Vonnegut 1969:2), the initial intention of the narrator Jonah being a description of a historical fact - the final stage of World War II - the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in the August of 1945, the only use of nuclear weapon in history. Jonah s research literally leads to the end of the world, caused by the apocalyptic Ice-9 material - the innocent invention of the scientist Dr. Hoenneker, who also appears to be responsible for the creation of the atomic bomb. Surprisingly, the man responsible for the eradication of humanity is not portrayed as a grotesque scientific genius, aiming to destroy and conquer the world. Instead, Dr. Hoenneker is a completely childish character, who conceives his scientific work and his inventions as innocent games. In Kurt Vonnegut s America, the most prolific scholar of Vonnegut, Jerome Klinkowitz, re-asks if the material Ice-9 is really an innocently devised invention (2009: 43-44) and claims that s a joke in Cat s Cradle, which shows the author s insight into how human beings can get themselves into much trouble. Their brains, he suggests 4

5 are well in advance of their moral powers. But here in Cat s Cradle the innocence is simply that of thoughtlessness (Ibid. p ), or simply of stupidity. Humanity s incapability to handle its own creativity and scientific inventions is not the only evidence of stupidity in Cat s Cradle. There is another invention - a fictitious religion, which serves this purpose as well. Bokononism, a religion created by Lionel Boyd Johnson or Bokonon, a shipwrecked resident of San Lorenzo island, and his dear fellow McCabe, is evidently based on shameless lies (Vonnegut 1969:5). The reader is also told that anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book either (Ibid. p. 5). Interestingly, Bokononism is forbidden in the island and the government claims to practise Christianity. The prohibition of the practise of Bokononism appears to be a rational solution of the religion creators after they failed to improve the living standards in San Lorenzo. Thus, they have granted the status of forbidden fruit to Bokononism, finding that as the living legend of the cruel tyrant in the city [McCabe] and the gentle holy man in the jungle [Johnson] grew, so did the happiness of the people grow (Ibid. p. 174). Although the religion initially aims at the good cause of making one brave and kind and happy (Ibid. p. 7), due to its false nature and invalid usage it fails to contribute to the survival of mankind. After Ice-9 freezes the planet, the surviving bokononists follow the frivolous and foolish advice of Bokonon and commit suicide, which confirms the failure of society for the second time. As Allen states, the two halves of Cat s Cradle show first science, then religion failing mankind (2009:65). Kurt Vonnegut s Cat s Cradle has been closely scrutinized by numerous critics, who have discussed and focused on the themes of religion, politics, science, and technology, as well as societal values and morality. May analyses the comic aspect of the Cat s Cradle, calling the novel a discovery of purpose, and the purpose itself revealed through the humorous interplay of science and religion is at best black. Vonnegut thus demonstrates his talent for constructing a highly intricate world grounded in whimsy (1972:31). Ponniah focuses on the religious aspects of the novel and inspects the correlation between religion and science: Vonnegut s views on religion [...] serve as antidote against the dangers created by science. He tries to 5

6 find the meaning in this absurd universe by creating new religions, based on human values. If man follows the existing system, he will go into pieces. Therefore, Vonnegut uses his religions to guide people and to mock the absurdity of the present day scientific world. (2009:24). However, virtually no research has been done on the prevailing essential and fundamental components of Cat s Cradle - ignorance, dumbfoundedness and the limits of the reason of mankind. Thus, my investigation will target these elements and I will try to prove that stupidity is the reason for the sickness of the human condition and its atavistic leanings towards destructiveness (Castro 1998:94). I will dedicate a part of this research to defining stupidity as a concept, basing my theoretical framework on arguably the most accurate and exhaustive study on stupidity carried out by the famous scholar, philosopher Avital Ronell, as well as several more authors - Sternberg, Welles, and Livraghi - who contributed to investigating the topic of ignorance. The second part of this paper will focus on applying the ideas of the aforementioned scholars to Vonnegut s discourse - basically, the two disciplines, which testimony the history of stupidity and the incapability of humanity to cope with these obviously overwhelming forces - science and religion. 6

7 2. Defining stupidity In the simplest or most popular terms, stupidity is defined as the lack of reason, intelligence or understanding. It derives from the 16th century, from the French stupide or the Latin stupidus or stupere, meaning to be amazed or stunned (Stevenson 2003:104). In Characters, which is claimed to be one of the first endeavours to systemize human moral types or character sketches, Greek philosopher Theophrastus describes stupidity in the character of the Stupid Man, claiming that stupidity may be defined as mental slowness in speech and action (in Garnett 1899:269) and illustrates the concept by giving instances of particular life situations. For Theophrastus, stupidity is just another type of man s behaviour or a character trait, which is set among other types, such as irony (Ironical man), flattery (The Flatterer), complaisance (The Complaisant Man), recklessness (The Reckless Man) and others. 2.1 Stupidity as a corrupted process of learning In his book Understanding Stupidity, Welles goes much deeper than that and claims that we cannot fully understand ourselves without understanding stupidity (1997:38). He opposes human stupidity to human intelligence and blames historians, philosophers, and scholars for focusing too much on praising human progress and intellect, without analysing or even knowing what stupidity is, or considering the phenomenon as such. It surprises him why such an enormous power is overlooked and missed so airily. Therefore, Welles study of stupidity is based on how the human mind works. He tries to find the reasons for the maladaptive behaviour being so common and attempts to find out why with all the information available, people tend not to use it. Welles claims that people tend to process information in the way they interrupt or even corrupt the process of learning, because the information that comes in confirms the selfdelusion and is accepted (1997:34). Whereas, the information that tends to contradict one s preconceptions is rejected. In this way people do not learn or stop learning. Thus, Welles defines stupidity as the learned corruption of learning (1997:34). It is an unconscious act, which is affected by many behavioural schema humanity tends to bear: 7

8 As with all of our other special traits, human stupidity is the culmination of a long train of development shaped by our evolutionary past, but meaningful generalizations about our psychic evolution are difficult because we are a compromise of all the incongruities of life. (Ibid. p. 102). Stupidity might be interpreted as a normal part of the human experience (Ibid. p. 8), it can be observed wherever people act and it is a mechanism of cultural selection (Ibid. p. 9). Welles draws a parallel between stupidity and the Freudian defence systems and calls it a social defence mechanism (Ibid. p. 56), because it protects individuals from overload of awareness. According to Welles: Stupidity thus results both from and in perceptual limits on learning which prevent a system from recognizing its own intrinsic limitations. A new idea is not judged objectively by an independent standard but is regarded primarily as a challenge to the prevailing ego/social system. This is an emotionally based, usually subconscious reaction. Only secondarily can the cognitive content of new information be processed consciously on something like its own merits. This is but a single example of the blind egotism so common in stupidity the reluctance to perceive unpleasant realities. (1997:87) The statement above confirms the tendency that it takes a lot to remove people out of their own behavioural schemas and that people are shockingly unwilling to change their minds. This constitutes a big problem and forces human beings to commit stupid actions. Due to the reason that human nature is so consistently arbitrary or in other words willing to thing and act subjectively (Ibid. p. 44), it removes all the chances we process information or act objectively, i. e. we do not use the possibility to judge ourselves unbiasedly, especially when we are involved in the action itself. Arbitrary thinking corrupts that sort of objectiveness, as it protects our selfesteem, perceptions, and standards, and we fail to be less stupid. Moreover, stupidity is so prevalent because we tend to act in order to defend ourselves or for our own convenience, so it leads us to failure. 2.2 Causes of stupidity While Welles endeavoured to define stupidity and provide us with examples of it through the history of humanity, another scholar, Sternberg, has assembled authors researches to find the 8

9 answer to the paradoxical question: why smart people tend to behave stupidly? In Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid (2008), several scholars search for the possible explanation. Analysing recurring foolishness, Ayduk and Mische state that the essential determinant of human stupidity is the lack of a self-control mechanism, which might be breached due to various self-protective reasons, such as vulnerability, rejection, and sensitivity. Moldoveanu and Langer argue that stupidity is an observer s phenomenon (Sternberg 2008:127), which appears due to differences in the way people think or process information. They suggest excluding the term of stupidity and argue that this state is that of being mindless, as most of the time people act mindlessly: mindlessness may be pervasive and very costly to us, [...] an increase in mindfulness results in an increase in competence, health and longevity, positive affect, creativity, charisma, and reduced burnout (Sternberg 2002:220). Contrastingly, the theory of Dweck proves that stupidity is caused by a personal belief that an individual is smart or the confidence that one s smartness is a fixed status. The person is not aware of the actual level his intelligence was fixated at and blocks any further development (Ibid. p. 234). This seems to be echoing Welles, i.e. stupidity as a corrupted learning Stupidity as an amorphous phenomenon Arguably, in the most exhaustive research on stupidity, philosopher Avital Ronell claims she is not aware of what stupidity is. In Stupidity she is not that brave as the aforementioned scholars; she hesitates to define stupidity because of eluding descriptive analysis, it switches and regroups, turns around and even fascinates (...). While stupidity is what is there, it cannot be simply located or evenly scored (2002:3), which confirms the fact that stupidity has no clear rationale, neither it is easily understandable. Indeed, stupidity is also what fatigues knowledge and wears down history (2002:3). Ronel addresses the stupidity as a pseudo concept and is quoted by Jacques Derrida in The Beast and the Sovereign, who elaborates on a concept that is so unstable, subject to such variability, such plasticity, such mobility, such a variety of uses that its meaning is not secure (Derrida 2009:170). Ronell does not contrast stupidity to knowledge or thinking, it is not the Other. Rather, she claims it is something that comes along with both aspects: stupidity is not so stupid as to oppose 9

10 thought (Ibid. p.67), it is in the absence of a relation to knowing (Ibid. p.67). In almost all cases stupidity is associated with eternal human characteristics - intricacies of repression, bungled action, error, blindness (Ibid. p. 24). Nearly any type of human intelligence is followed by stupidity. Everything we do can be seen as stupid - that you couldn t sleep last night, that I have spent the whole summer tormented by the neighbor s shower, that you are going to eat lunch, that you are in a relationship, that you are not in a relationship, that Ronald Reagan and subsequent replicants are now said to have had a personality, that you have to watch your weight, that they got away with it, that we are getting away with it, that you have to do things to earn your living, that you have to go to the bathroom several times a day, that you sit with the same sentence for several hours - there is nothing that is not stupid. (2002:73). Seemingly, Ronell echoes Brecht, who said that intelligence is finite, stupidity can be infinite (Ibid. p. 73) and Einstein - two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, but I am not so certain about the universe (Ibid. p. 73). She claims that stupidity is endless and unlimited, it has to do with our nature as finite beings (...) yet it is not limited, touching even finity (Ibid. p. 73). Thus, Ronell talks about the numerous forms of stupidity prevalent in the context of history, literature, literary theory, and philosophy. For Ronell, it is Flaubert who detects not the essence of stupidity, but its vital force and power: Stupidity is something unshakeable. Nothing attacks it without breaking itself against it. It is of the nature of granite, hard and resistant. (Ronell 2002:10). However, Flaubert defines stupidity as a status quo or a rejection to think and act any further, forcing to accept things as they are, which means drawing a clear line between the clever and the dumb. Ronel refuses to acknowledge the status quo of stupidity and draw that line. The only official social excuse for stupidity is when it is linked with love. Then it sparkles with life and becomes one of the few sites where it is permitted publicly to be stupid (Ibid. p. 89). Love discloses the imbecilic effusions of being-with and it becomes a shared stupidity, which works as repressed ground of human affectivity (Ibid. p. 89). However, later on Ronell admits that stupidity can t be blamed for everything and agrees with Nietzsche, who claimed that stupidity can be associated with life and growth (Ibid. p. 3) She points out that in some life 10

11 situations stupidity might be the saving factor, claiming that ducking into stupidity offers the most expedient strategy for survival (Ibid. p. 43) The Power of Stupidity In a considerable research on stupidity called The Power of Stupidity, the scholar Giancarlo Livraghi acts radically in analysing the theme of stupidity. He states that we tend to blame our selfishness, arrogance, misbehaviour, and perversities for our stupid behaviour, but it is sheer stupidity (2009:11) that has to be accused. Livraghi aims at finding the explanation for stupidity, not simply at trying to define it (he, as Ronell, agrees that is an inseparable part of human nature). Rather, Livraghi is trying to understand how human stupidity is the reason for most of humanity s problems. The very core of his intent is to figure out how stupidity works and have a better chance of controlling its effects (Ibid. p. 14). According to Livraghi, three main factors, which are ignorance, fear, and habit, program stupid behaviour. They operate both separately and blending with each other in order to be exploited by any of us. Although often used as synonyms, stupidity should not be confused with ignorance, he states. Ignorance exposes itself with unawareness, low intelligence or, on the contrary, it may come out with the form of assumption of knowledge (Livraghi 2009:83), refusing to understand and acknowledge one s own stupidity. Fear of knowledge is the strongest element that causes stupidity. While the habit, which strongly correlates with fear, is something that keeps one in status quo, pauses or blocks the progress or change, thus causing possible stupid actions. In his research, Livraghi has named 3 corollaries of stupidity, or 3 important stupidity concepts, which characterize its basic components. Firstly, there is the universality of stupidity: in each of us there is a factor of stupidity, which is always larger that we suppose (Ibid. p. 55). Livraghi emphasizes the unexpectedness of stupidity and treats it, similarly to Ronell and Welles, as a part of human nature. The second corollary is more dramatic and provides a threatening increase factor: when stupidity of one person combines with the stupidity of others, the impact grows geometrically - i.e. by multiplication, not addition, of the individual stupidity factors (Ibid. p. 55). Stupidity multiplies in masses, despite individual characters involved. This helps to 11

12 understand the dangerous phenomenon of masses and clarify the popular fact that crowds as a whole are much more stupid than any individual person in the crowd (Ibid. p. 56). Stupidity is an aggregator, containing more power and effect than other human attitudes (Ibid. p. 57), therefore it has no cure as nobody is totally immune (Ibid. p. 58). The third corollary states that the combination of intelligence in different people is more difficult than the combination of stupidity (Ibid. p. 58). It is easier and quicker to provoke or cause stupid actions, because stupidity is something that is not organized or systematized, it is brainless and acts unplanned, that is why it causes disturbing repercussions. Contrastingly, the combination of intelligence is much more elaborate, careful, and responsible, as it involves conscientious planning processes and accuracy, weighted assessments and decisions. To sum up, stupidity is a slippery signifier, as many scholars tend to claim. To put it crudely, a careful look into stupidity leaves one being completely stupid about stupidity. It does not let itself be easily defined, predicted, and conveniently traced or locked in any form of existence. However, even being a vague phenomenon, it is an extremely dangerous part of human nature. What makes it even more uncomfortable and disturbing is that stupidity is rarely admitted by humanity, which generates more unpredictable results. The aforementioned scholars Welles, Sternberg, except Ronell, who refuses definitions, agree that stupidity is caused by the unwillingness to learn, change or to concede mistakes. However, it is evident that stupidity is the one to blame for constant human errors. These important ideas on stupidity, especially its elements, such as putting one s interests above those of others and lack of reason, will be used in the following analysis part of this research. 3. Stupidity in Cat s Cradle Kurt Vonnegut has written a history of human stupidity, providing humanity with two powerful tools, science and religion, to show how absurdly, mindlessly, and irresponsibly people tend to use them due to indifference, selfish goals, and lack of reason, which are all elements of stupidity. The novel is named after a stupid, meaningless game - cat s cradle, which is a central 12

13 symbol in the narrative. To play a cat s cradle one has to tie both ends of the string to form a loop. The story itself has a circular composition, as one cannot fully understand the full meaning of the beginning and the epigraphs, until one reads the end of the novel. A circle is a well-known symbol of the null, which means nothing (zero) or everything, wholeness or infinity. This could resemble either the infinity of stupidity Ronell mentions, or it is a loop that forms the circle from the string of science and religion, surrounding the emptiness of a human mind that is placed inside. However, cat s cradle does not become cat s cradle until human hands give a shape to it. Symbolically, the human hands try - successfully or unsuccessfully - to give meaning to the world that surrounds us. The cat s cradle, then, has been shaped by the hands of Vonnegut s characters and is a disaster, leading the world to its destruction. 3.1 Technology and stupidity Science or technology by definition are intellectual activities, systematically organized structures and are rarely associated with the notion of stupidity. The core idea of science and technology is that it brings progress or improvement that contributes to the betterment of human condition. However, in Vonnegut s discourse, science is harshly criticized for its aim to explore and seek the truth. He said science was going to discover the basic secret of life someday (Vonnegut 1969:21), claims a bartender to John, when he asks about Frank Hoenikker. Is science and technology humanity s existential attempt to seek the meaning in the meaningless? In Cat s Cradle, the stupid paradox with this question and its answer is that science has established itself as an enigma or magic. Indeed, Dr. Hoenikker s secretary Miss Pefko refers to science as magic : - Magic, declared Miss Pefko. - I'm sorry to hear a member of the Laboratory family using that brackish, medieval word, said Dr. Breed. Every one of those exhibits explains itself. They're designed so as not to be mystifying. They're the very antithesis of magic. - The very what of magic?" - The exact opposite of magic. - You couldn't prove it by me. (Ibid. p. 36) Science is beyond human awareness or judgement. It has formed an erroneous belief that nobody is capable assess science as such. This possibly manifests in that science has philosophically 13

14 released itself out of control of any institutions and is acting independently beyond human understanding. Since science sees its role as delivering knowledge or pure research, it is detached from any consequences. Scientists are involved in the pure search for knowledge, so they are disconnected from life and humanity. Science has become a new religion and scientists have become the saints. Therefore, they are beyond criticism and have assumed a paternalistic role. Dying Papa Monzano has appointed Frank Hoenikker as the president of San Lorenzo, because he had science, science is the strongest thing there is (Ibid. p. 146). In Cat s Cradle, science brought the atomic bomb and Ice-9, both agents of human destruction. Welles says that the social impact of technology and scientific ideology is commonly treated as an incidental spinoff from numerous, specific projects, each developed by single-minded engineers (2009: 88). Dr. Hoenneker or the father of the atomic bomb seems to be a perfect illustration of Welles s single-minded engineer concept. The character of Dr. Hoenneker is suffused with Vonnegut s personal experience, when he used to work as a public relations man in General Electrics. Communicating with scientists a lot, Vonnegut appeared to be extremely troubled that they began to believe the truth must be served and that they need not to fear whatever they turned up in the course of their research (McCartan 2011:91). One scientist in particular became a model for the character of Hoenikker: he was absolutely indifferent to the uses that might be made of the truths he dug out of the rock and handed out to whomever (Ibid. p. 91). Correspondingly, while doing his research, the narrator Jonah is asked by a scientist whether he believes that scientists are heartless, conscienceless, narrow boobies, indifferent to the fate of the rest of the human race, or maybe not really members of the human race at all (Vonnegut 1969:39). Jonah denies the statement, though this is a description of a typical scientist Vonnegut seemingly wants the reader to be left with. Dr. Felix Hoenikker, the man who invented the atomic bomb that was later dropped on Hiroshima, is a typical caricature of asocial, absent-minded scientist, who lives in his own world. Disastrously to humanity, he is like a child who does not feel any moral responsibility about the consequences of his actions and his creations. Neither is he responsible for anything in his daily life, including his three children. He is detached both from the real life of his family and that of 14

15 humanity. When he tested a bomb at Alamogordo, after the thing went off, after it was a sure thing that America could wipe out a city with just one bomb (Ibid. p.17), a scientist said that science has now known sin, to which Dr. Hoenikker poignantly replied What is sin? (Ibid. p.17). He recognizes neither sin nor virtue, except the latter being a peculiar form of technology or science that is ultimately stripped off of any human regards. The paradox and irony with scientists as representatives of science is that they should not be defined and are not usually defined as stupid people. They are beyond the perception of other people, as science itself. Similarly, this paradox is what Ronell has been trying to untangle in claiming that stupidity comes along with knowledge: When stupidity is not being played but instead asserts itself without remorse, it paradoxically plays in the side of the truth, or at least it poses itself as replica of absolute knowledge: achieving closure, knowing its ground and meaning, stupidity is accomplice to the narcissism of systems that close upon themselves as truth. To be sure ( sure : another reflex of stupidity), process is missing, concealment is out of the question, and stupidity remains a phantom of the truth to which it points. (Ronell 2002:43) Dr. Hoenikker is so certain about the science game he plays, that he is totally absorbed, leaving all the possible concerns behind and affecting the faith of all the planet. The three children of Dr. Hoenikker are the victims of their father s obsession and absence in their childhood. They all have some sort of physical disability as a symbolic external moral scar. They are immature and unable to resist using Ice-9 to buy the acceptance and love of others. The uneducated daughter Angela Hoenikker exiled herself from society and devoted herself to raising up her two brothers. Having no experience in the real world, she foolishly gives away Ice-9 to a man who marries her to get it. The youngest child, the midget Newt, has not recovered from the incident when his father tried to interact with him for the first and only time. He tried to play with Newt by showing him the game of the cat s cradle. Later on, Newt summarizes his experience: - No wonder kids grow up crazy. A cat's cradle is nothing but a bunch of X's between somebody's hands, and little kids look and look and look at all those X's. - And? - No damn cat, and no damn cradle. (Vonnegut 1969:166) 15

16 Seemingly, the senseless stupid game in advance programmes the senseless adult-self behaviour in the future. Therefore, Newt does not avoid making the same mistake to be accepted or at least falsely loved by a Russian spy Zinka, who fools Newt and gets Ice-9 for the Soviet Union. Since his childhood, the third offspring Frank Hoenikker seems to be obsessed with the power to control living things (his favourite game in his childhood was to put bugs in a jar and spoon them, so that they fight or he created a mini model town to rule them). Correspondingly, Livraghi claims that the delusion of feeling superior is an aggressive cause of stupidity, as power game gains more power (2009:64), therefore it causes tragedies. Similarly to his father, Frank is absolutely asocial, having the same communication limitations; he turns down the position of the president of San Lorenzo and gives it to Jonah. He thoughtlessly handles Ice-9 to a dictator of San Lorenzo, Papa Monzano, and disconnects himself from the consequences he has caused. Due to their inability to reconsider or evaluate their actions or effect on other people, the three Hoenikkers become the second link in the chain of stupidity to cause apocalypse. Here we might claim a conceptual status quo in stupidity that clearly is an attribute of the Hoennekers and exemplifies the pessimistic statement by Ronell: There is one more thing, one more problem. The stupid cannot see themselves. No mirror yet has invented in which they might reflect themselves. They ineluctably evade reflection. No catoptrics can mirror back to them, the shallowest, most surface-bound beings, the historical disaster they portend. (2002:18) Vonnegut s characters are incapable of reflecting themselves mentally or spiritually. Furthermore, they are unable to reflect on and assess the fallouts of their actions. Vonnegut s perspective and verdict is that science or technology are harmless as such. However, these concepts tend to act above human knowledge and are smarter than most of the humanity and the ones that can deal with the power of technology are too selfish and narrow-minded to do it. Technology becomes a curse on humanity, just because society is too stupid to cope with it. 16

17 Evidently, so is religion, which will be discussed in the following chapter Religion and stupidity In the record of human stupidity that is Cat s Cradle, the invented religion Bokononism plays a significant role, attempting to provide a meaning of life to the inhabitants of San Lorenzo. The residents of the island are described as ignorant, poor, and scared; the religion that admits it is based on lies is supposed to make their existence better. At least this was the initial goal of the other two heroes of the novel - the ones who have created the impoverished Republic of San Lorenzo and its religion, Bokononism. Lionel Boyd Johnson or Bokonon and ex-marine deserter Earl McCabe meet in Haiti and sail to Miami; however, they experience a shipwreck and appear in San Lorenzo, where they decide to establish an utopian country. They ground the culture in an invented religion: Well, it became evident that no governmental or economic reform was going to make the people much less miserable, the religion became the one real instrument of hope (Vonnegut 1969:172). However, Bokononism does not prove to be as successful at making people happy as they thought, so they decide to outlaw Bokononism, thus making the religion more tempting. Welles claims that one of the peculiar things about all religions, be they supernatural or superhuman, is that so much of their substance is demonstrably false. Nevertheless, religious beliefs are the driving force of society. People would really rather believe than know (1997:103). Here, Welles might be opposing religion or a system of belief to knowledge, as religion is based on constructs that do not have a rational background. Correspondingly, he opposes stupidity to knowledge, while defining the former. Vonnegut takes a different approach - he does not compare or oppose religion to science, but rather plainly demonstrates how it works, even if it testimonies and declares the most absurd truths and brings terrible effects. Obviously, Bokonon believes that all religions are based on lies and he modifies his own big lie for people to believe in and to explain their existence or possibly discover the meaning in the meaningless. However, does the initial positive intention plays the main part? Or is it just 17

18 another field of stupidity put into force? The first sentence in the Books of Bokonon declares: All the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies (Vonnegut 1969:5). The story the narrator is recounting and the novel itself, as well as Bokonon s writings, entangle significantly on the final page. Each of them begin with an explanation that you can find nothing but lies in these pages and each of them can be regarded as history of human stupidity. The teachings of Bokononism seem to make people of aware of the danger of religion. While the majority of religions urge to believe in the teachings that are announced (Christianity, for example), Bokononism, on the contrary, warns that belief is dangerous. Bokonon seems to be aware of how absurd and foolish his books are and alerts the reader: Don't be a fool! Close this book at once! It is nothing but foma! Foma, of course are lies (Ibid. p. 265). One, who is not considerate enough and chooses to believe in Bokononism, is nothing but a fool in the trap of stupidity, which leads to nowhere, as believing or acting on false information can end up in severe consequences. Then how does Bokononism contribute to a better cause (as was initially planned), when the whole teaching is a permission for man to act independently, without any real guidance or moral support? In the beginning, God created the earth, and he looked upon it in His cosmic loneliness. And God said, Let Us make living creatures out of mud, so the mud can see what We have done. And God created every living creature that now moveth, and one was man. Mud as man alone could speak. God leaned close as mud as man sat up, looked around, and spoke. Man blinked. "What is the purpose of all this?" he asked politely. "Everything must have a purpose?" asked God. "Certainly," said man. "Then I leave it to you to think of one for all this," said God. And He went away. (Vonnegut 1969:265) There is no meaning and purpose in the invented religion, as the dialogue above seems to indicate Bokononism claims that it is foolish to find purpose and meaning: anyone, who thinks he sees what God is Doing, is a fool (Vonnegut 1969:5), which conveys the message of futility and fatalism of human existence. Another proof of this claim can be found in The Fourteenth Book of Bokonon, entitled What Can a Thoughtful Man Hope for Mankind on Earth, Given the Experience of the Past Million Years? (Ibid. p. 45). It does not take a minute to read this book, because the answer to the existential question is not a long one - Nothing (Ibid. p. 245). 18

19 Bokononism also never expects humans to learn from the mistakes of their past, stating that how futile it is to write or read histories (Ibid. p. 237). It directly points to Welles theory of a social defence mechanism (1997:56), because it protects individuals from overload of awareness (1997:56). If identifying the meaning of life in religion is an undertaking of a fool, then what is the solution Vonnegut proposes? Does that mean that living in stupidity and absurdity one has to passively get along with it? It seems that Vonnegut s solution is passive aggressive, just as stupidity is. Thus, the end of the remaining residents of San Lorenzo is tragic. After Ice-9 freezes the planet, Bokonon advises his followers to commit a mass suicide and the reader testimonies ironical Livraghi s observation, according to which stupidity drastically boosts and breeds in masses. The crowd that is involved in any action behaves more stupidly than any individual person in the crowd (Livraghi 2009:56). Later on, when the narrator meets Bokonon, the co-creator of the religion seems to be giving the same advice regarding suicide to him: If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would climb to the top of Mount McCabe and lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would take from the ground some of the blue-white poison that makes statues of men; and I would make a statue of myself, lying on my back, grinning horribly, and thumbing my nose at You Know Who. (Vonnegut 1969: 287) Hereby, we witness how in the hands of a fool irresponsible for his actions religion leads to tragedy. Absolutism, the ludicrous and irrational belief that one s own ideas are unconditionally correct (reminding of Dr. Hoenneker and Ronell s theory of stupidity in being sure and assertive) takes us to the dark and apocalyptic conclusion, where stupidity triumphs over humanity. 19

20 4. Conclusions The present BA paper aimed at focusing on the theme of stupidity in Kurt Vonnegut s novel Cat s Cradle. It was directed to prove that stupidity is the reason for the sickness of the human condition and its atavistic leanings towards destructiveness (Castro 1998:94). While analysing Vonnegut s experiment to hand humanity two vital forces - science and religion - and let the mankind fail, firstly it was important to define stupidity itself, which was analysed by a rather limited number of scholars. The most relevant ideas that contributed to this research were developed by Ronnel, Sternberg, Welles and Livraghi. The analysis of studies carried out by the aforementioned authors showed that a common denominator of stupidity is its predominance in basically all areas of human existence; moreover, they emphasized the extreme danger stupidity might generate. Even though these observations could be regarded as too generic or too obvious, scholars gave it a status quo, naming stupidity as an infinite concept. Stupidity appears to be closely connected to the process of learning and signifies the corruption of it, leading to constant human errors. The analysis part of this research was divided into two parts and the concept of stupidity was inspected in the light of two main topics of the narrative - science and religion. The former seems to be above human knowledge or understanding and it has evaded the consequences of its actions due to humanity s corrupted process of learning, an element of stupidity according to Welles. Moreover, science appeared to be a product of single-minded engineers, such as dr. Hoenneker, a man responsible for inventing apocalyptic materials. The single-mindedness brought irresponsibility for its own actions and as it affected other human beings, it lead to a catastrophe. Furthermore, Vonnegut s narrative seem to exemplify Ronnel s approach to stupidity, as she claimed that knowledge comes along with stupidity, since the former contains a component of absolute intelligence and assurance. The research showed that religion and stupidity played in a similar scheme in Cat s Cradle. Even if the religion, i.e. Bokononism, was created for a good purpose, it failed due to its false 20

21 nature and a misleading guidance of its prophet, Bokonon. This is faced by another statement of Welles - indeed, people rather blindly believe, than know. Bokonon s teaching neglects history as a source of learning from humanity s mistakes so that they are not repeated, proving Welles theory of social defense mechanism. Being nothing but a tool to control the masses, a gathering where stupidity dramatically multiplies, Bokononism ends the life to its followers. Thus, all these components combined lead to a tragic fate for Vonnegut s humanity. 21

22 5. References 1. VONNEGUT, K. (1969) Cat s Cradle. New York: Dell Publishing Co. 2. CIPOLLA, C. M. (2011) The basic laws of human stupidity. [Online] Societa editrice il Mulino. Available from: [Accessed: October 13, 2015]. 3. RONELL, A. (2002) Stupidity. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. 4. WELLES, J. F. (1997) Understanding Stupidity. United States: Mount Pleasant Pr. 5. LIVRAGHI, G. (2009) The power of stupidity. [Online] M&A Publishers. Available from: [Accessed: February 3, 2016]. 6. STERNBERG, R. J. (2002) Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid. New Haven, London: Yale University Press ALLEN, W. R. (2009) Understanding Kurt Vonnegut. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. 8. KLINKOWITZ, J. (2009) Kurt Vonnegut's America. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. 9. KLINKOWITZ, J. (2010) The Vonnegut Effect. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press. 10. MAY, J. R. (1972) Vonnegut's Humor and the Limits of Hope. In: Twentieth Century Literature, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp [Online] Hofstra University. Available from: [Accessed: October 13, 2016]. 11. BERCOVITCH, S. (ed.) (1999) The Cambridge History of American Literature: Volume 7. Prose Writing New York: Cambridge University Press. 12. CASTRO, J. L. (1998) Cat s Cradle: The Apokalyptic Creativity of Curt Vonnegut. In: Revista de Estudios Norteamericanos, No. 6, pp [Online] Available from: [Accessed: December 2, 2016]. 13. PONNIAH, J. R. (2009) Biblical Myths and Humanism in Cat s Cradle and Slaughterhouse-Five. In: Anthropologist, No. 11(1), pp [Online] Available from: Abst-PDF/Anth Ponniah-R-J/Anth Ponniah- R-J-Tt.pdf [Accessed: February 2, 2017]. 14. STEVENSON, S. A. C. (2003) Oxford Dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 15. McCARTAN, T. (2011) Kurt Vonnegut: The Last Interview: And Other Conversations. [Online] Melville House Publishing. Available from: [Accessed: March 6, 2017]. 16. GARNETT, R. (1899) The Universal Anthology: A Collection of the Best Literature, 22

23 Ancient, Medieval and Modern, with Biographical and Explanatory Notes. [Online] Grolier Society. Available from: [Accessed: January 30, 2017]. 17. DERRIDA, J. (2009) The Beast and the Sovereign, Volume I. The University of Chicago Press. [Online] Available from [Accessed: April 16, 2017]. 23

24 Summary in Lithuanian Žmonijos kvailumo istorija vadinamas Kurto Voneguto romanas Katės lopšys - aštri ir sukrečianti mokslo, technologijų, politikos, religijos ir pačios visuomenės satyra ir kritika. Daugybė kritikų analizavo pastaruosius reiškinius, tačiau menkas dėmesys buvo skirtas naratyviniu požiūriu romane svarbiai žmonijos kvailumo temai. Todėl šio tyrimo tikslas buvo atskleisti, kaip ši tema dominuoja Katės lopšyje ir kaip kvailais žmonėmis apgyvendinta visuomenė naudojasi galingomis pačios žmonijos sukurtomis sistemomis - mokslu ir religija. Reikšminga šio tyrimo užduotimi ir iššūkiu tapo mažai tyrinėtas kvailumo sąvokos apibrėžimas. Todėl analizės teorinei prieigai buvo pasirinkti keli mokslininkai: A. Ronell, R. Sternberg, J. Welles ir G. Livraghi, kurie ženkliai prisidėjo prie kvailumo suvokimo ir apibrėžtumo. Pastarųjų autorių tyrimai rodo, jog kvailumas kaip fenomenas dominuoja visose žmogiškosios egzistencijos srityse ir pabrėžia šio fenomeno pavojingumą. Nors atrodytų, jog šios pastabos yra pernelyg akivaizdžios ir lengvai suprantamos, mokslininkai suteikia kvailumui status quo etiketę ir įvardina jį kaip reiškinį, kuris neturi ribų. Kvailumas oponuoja išminčiai arba žinioms ir tampa esmine kliūtimi sėkmingam egzistavimui bei žmonijos klaidų kaltininku. Voneguto romane mokslas pats savaime yra nekenksmingas ir nekaltas, tačiau tapęs sistema jis viršija žmonijos supratimą dėl prigimtinio visuomenės bruožo negebėti mokytis. Welles tai įvardina kaip sugadintą mokymosi procesą arba kvailumą. Dar daugiau, mokslas tapo tik savo sritimi besirūpinančių inžinierių produktu, kuriuos romane atstovauja daktaras Hionekeris. Siauras mąstymas ir savo elgesio pasekmių nesuvokimas įtakoja ir likusios žmonijos likimą bei veda prie katastrofos. Ronell teigė, kad žinios ir mokslas keliauja kartu su kvailumu, nes vienas pagrindinių žinių ar išmonės komponentų yra absoliutus žinojimas ir įsitikinimas savo tiesa. Todėl šiame duete kvailumas suvaidina pagrindinę rolę. Religija romane veikia panašia schema. Nors Bokononizmas buvo sukurtas tam, kad tarnautų geriems tikslams, jis tapo dar vienu nevykusiu bandymu padėti žmonijai. Šios religijos 24

25 melaginga prigimtis bei klaidinga pranašo Bokonono lyderystė tapo Welles teorijos įrodymu, kad žmonės renkasi tikėjimą, ne žinojimą. Bokononizmas neskatino žmonijos mokytis iš klaidų ir neigė istoriją kaip mokslą. Taigi, visi šie kvailumo elementai įtakoja groteskišką apokalipsę Voneguto diskurse. 25