 |
| Title | Creative Destruction: Its Facets and Tangents |
| Author | Killgore, Benjamin M. |
| Abstract | This thesis examines the concept of Creative Destruction, where a new, more efficient and/or less expensive technology or system is discovered that can replace an existing one. The term was coined by economist Joseph A. Schumpeter. |
| Edition | Electronic reproduction |
| Date Original | 2012-12 |
| Publisher Digital | Published digitally by Utah Valley University Library |
| Date Digital | 2013-01-18 |
| Physical Description | 108 pages; 22 cm. |
| Owning Institution | Utah Valley University |
| Subject | Dissertations, Academic
Creative destruction
|
| Local Subjects | Integrated Studies; |
| Language | eng |
| Collection Name | Utah Valley University Thesis Collection |
| Rights | The author retains all copyright ownership. The right to download or print any of the pages of these theses is granted by the copyright owner only for personal or classroom use. The author retains all proprietary rights, including copyright ownership. Any reproduction or editing by any means mechanical or electronic without the express written permission of the copyright owner is strictly prohibited. |
| Copyright Status/Owner | Copyright 2013 by the author. |
| Type | Text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Contributor Metadata | McIntyre, Catherine |
| Metadata Entry Date | 2013-01-18 |
| Metadata Entry Tool | CONTENTdm Project Client v. 5.4 |
| Full Text | 1 CREATIVE DESTRUCTION; ITS FACETS AND TANGENTS By BENJAMIN M. KILLGORE Senior thesis submitted to my Integrated Studies Board of Utah Valley University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Bachelor of Science in Integrated Studies BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND ENGLISH Orem, Utah December 2012 3 Table of Contents Part I: Joseph A. Schumpeter's Creative Destruction .................................................................................. 5 Chapter 1: Schumpeterian Basics .................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 2: An Overview of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy .................................................................. 13 Chapter 3: Creative Destruction .................................................................................................................... 23 Part II: Creative Destruction in the World Around Us ............................................................................. 31 Chapter 4: Darwin, Pandas' Thumbs, and Punctuation: Creative Destruction and Biological Evolution ............................................................................................................................... ...................... 33 Chapter 5: The Life of Stars and Cosmic Contiguity: Creative Destruction and Astrophysics ........... 41 Chapter 6: Dukkha, Anatta, and Nirvana: Creative Destruction and Buddhism ..................................... 49 Chapter 7: Cast Out of the Garden: Creative Destruction and the Eden Narrative ............................. 55 Part III: Creative Destruction as a Lens ....................................................................................................... 63 Chapter 8: Creative Destruction on the Brain ............................................................................................. 65 Chapter 9: Creative Destruction and Us ...................................................................................................... 71 Chapter 10: Creative Destruction and Macbeth ............................................................................................ 85 Chapter 11: Creative Destruction and Pleasantville ...................................................................................... 95 Chapter 12: Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 103 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... .................... 105 5 Part I Joseph A. Schumpeter's Creative Destruction 6 7 Chapter 1 Schumpeterian Basics A Common Occurrence A kind of event that frequently occurs in the world that we know might be described like this: A woman uses a technology or system on a daily basis, and this technology ( or system) is at the core of what this person does professionally. She knows all sorts of things about the technology; in fact she studied and practiced using it for years. The continued operation of the technology is dependent on her knowledge; at least, it is dependent on her knowledge in her specific region. Additionally, her livelihood is dependent on her expert understanding of the technology, which no one else around has. Well, say that one day she dreams up a new technology that can do the task that she has been doing with the technology she has— as well as several other tasks— faster and more efficiently than her current technology. She then proceeds to design, develop, and produce this new technology and uses it to her benefit, and the benefit of many of those around her. This situation, that is, the creation of a new, more efficient and/ or cheaper technology or system to replace an existing one has a name: ― Creative Destruction.‖ The person who came up with this name was the economist Joseph A. Schumpeter. A Brief Biography Joseph Alois Schumpeter was born in 1883 to German- speaking parents in the hamlet of Triesch, Moravia, in what was then the Austro- Hungarian Empire. His father, a textile factory owner, died when he was four and his mother remarried six years later to an Austro- Hungarian general who 8 provided Joseph and his mother with many important advantages. 1 Schumpeter took advantage of these opportunities and studied hard, not only for the drive to have a good place in society but because of a dynamic curiosity. As Thomas K. McCraw puts it in his topical biography on Schumpeter, As at high schools everywhere, then and now, many students tried to idle their way through, doing as little work as possible. But Schumpeter— playful and outgoing as he was— had the true intellectual's curiosity about the world. These characteristics, along with his ambitious mother's urgings that he shine academically, made him one of the [ preparatory academy Theresianum]' s best students. 2 Schumpeter's curiosity and drive led him further as he attended university at the prestigious University of Vienna, which he graduated from in 1906.3 During his last year at the university, Schumpeter came across what would become the distinguishing thinker behind his own ideas about capitalist economics. Oddly enough this source is one of the greatest critics of capitalist economics: Karl Marx. 4 After receiving his doctoral degree from Vienna, Schumpeter studied some more in the field of economics, and began teaching. After teaching for several years, Schumpeter was appointed as an Austrian Minister of Finance in the new Republic of Austria. After a very frustrating career in the Finance Ministry, Schumpeter then tried and failed in the banking industry. After these failures Schumpeter moved to Germany and taught Public Finance at the University of Bonn for seven years until shortly before Hitler came to power at which point Schumpeter went to teach at Harvard in the 1 Thomas K. McCraw, Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction ( Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard UP, 2007), 10– 13. 2 Ibid., 15. 3 Herbert Giersch, ― The Age of Schumpeter,‖ The American Economic Review 74, no. 2 ( May 1984), 103. 4 McCraw, Prophet of Innovation, 40– 49. 9 U. S.. After several years as a beloved educator and prolific writer, Joseph A. Schumpeter passed away in January 1950 in his home in Taconic, Connecticut. 5 Throughout Schumpeter's life he wrote much and often on economic theory. He wrote about what the state of economics was during his lifetime. However the main thrust of his work as an author was to discuss his perception of economic history as cyclical and evolutionary. Along with his emphasis on the nature of economics, Schumpeter equally focused his work on the cyclically evolutionary nature of society, the magnum opus of which was his text Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. 6 Schumpeter's Oeuvre Before writing Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy Schumpeter did try to write several other pieces; in fact, his first attempt at a crowning achievement was also written while he was at Harvard. This two volume, 1,095 page fusion of all that he had learned up to that point was Business Cycles. Cycles was an effort that now would take the work of an entire staff of economists struggling together ( and in fact, Schumpeter admitted that normally such an endeavor would be a group project), but it was something the prosperous Schumpeter worked out on his own over seven years with apropos diligence and consideration. 7 Cycles was an examination of history with an emphasis on socio- economic evolutionary patterns. 8 The work was not the success that Schumpeter hoped it to be, however; in large part due to the contemporary release of John Maynard Keynes' wildly popular The 5 Giersch, ― Age of Schumpeter,‖ 103. 6 Ibid. 7 McCraw, Prophet of Innovation, 251– 278. 8 Giersch, ― Age of Schumpeter,‖ 103; McCraw, Prophet of Innovation, 254. 10 General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. 9 Nonetheless, the experience Schumpeter gained in writing Cycles proved essential to his efforts in writing Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, is a study that Schumpeter makes on an interesting set of subjects. The text begins as an analysis of the works of Karl Marx that Schumpeter was familiar with at the time. It therefore, quite famously ( or infamously, as the case may be to the individual critic), excluded any consideration on Marx' Grundrisse. Grundrisse might be described as either Marx' source material for all his other works, or a text that would have dwarfed all his others. This being said, Marx did not finish Grundrisse during his lifetime, and it was not published until 1939 in the USSR, and was not available to Schumpeter during his lifetime. 10 Schumpeter takes great effort to expose the sources of Marx' information and study on economics and the other various topics that Marx covers; at times showing some of the flaws that Schumpeter saw in Marx' works, at other times praising the socialist for his insight into the human condition. It may be seen simply by the titles of the chapters that Schumpeter has in the first part of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, ― The Marxian Doctrine,‖ just how in depth he goes into discussing Marx' work and effect on society ( i. e. ― Marx the Prophet,‖ ― Marx the Sociologist,‖ ― Marx the Economist,‖ and ― Marx the Teacher‖). Indeed, when giving a critical review of the third edition of Schumpeter's Capitalism, economics professor Robert L. Heilbroner writes, For Schumpeter was without rival among conventional economists in his understanding of Marx. The opening chapters of [ Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy], on Marx as Prophet, 9 McCraw, Prophet of Innovation, 303; introduction to the Harper Perennial Modern Thought edition of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, by Joseph A. Schumpeter ( New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2008), XVI– XVII. 10 David McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought ( New York: Harper & Row, 1973), 294, see footnote 1; Robert L. Heilbroner, review of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 3rd ed. by Joseph A. Schumpeter, ― Was Schumpeter Right?,‖ Challenge 25, no. 1 ( March/ April 1982), 60. 11 Sociologist, Economist, and Teacher, reveal an appreciation for and knowledge of Marx's work that none of his colleagues could have begun to match; indeed, that is still remarkable today. 11 Heilbroner goes on to discuss many of Schumpeter's shortcomings ( which I will return to later), but the point is clear: Schumpeter was an excellent Marx scholar, even though his interpretations of Marx may have been skewed from what many Marx scholars have averred. Differing from Cycles not only by the exact topic of the text, but also the specificity of the text, Capitalism is a text that explores the author's understanding of society and economics. As McCraw puts it in Prophet of Innovation: ― At 381 pages, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy is only one third the length of Business Cycles and unencumbered by the academic minutiae of the earlier work. Even so, it radiates profound erudition. It is an eloquent book, bursting with apt metaphors and telling asides.‖ 12 In all honesty, there is much division as to the meaning behind Capitalism that Schumpeter intended. To some it is an honest attempt at describing the path that capitalist society will take in the coming centuries of time. To others it is a satire directed at Marx and Marxists. Either way, as Heilbroner points out in his review of Capitalism, the main question that Schumpeter discusses— whether satirically meant or not— is this: ― Can capitalism survive?‖ Schumpeter writes in response to his rhetorical question, ― No. I do not think it can.‖ 13 11 Heilbroner, ― Was Schumpeter Right?,‖ 59. 12 McCraw, Prophet of Innovation, 347. 13 Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper Perennial Modern Thought ed. ( New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2008) 61. 12 13 Chapter 2 An Overview of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy Schumpeter and ― The Marxian Doctrine‖ The first part of Schumpeter's Capitalism discusses Marx' influence and what we as receivers of his work should consider him to be. Schumpeter begins with a discussion of Marx as a figurehead; that is, whether he is one or not. Schumpeter points out that although Marx' writings and ideology can be held to essentially be a religion to some— spewing forth ― white- hot‖ slogans to excite the mind and impassion the heart— that there was always something more to Marx' work. Marx had important points to make that carried weight both in the arena of philosophy and of civics. Schumpeter writes: Call Marxist religion a counterfeit if you like, or a caricature of faith— there is plenty to be said for this view— but do not overlook or fail to admire the greatness of the achievement. Never mind that nearly all of those millions were unable to understand and appreciate the message in its true significance. That is the fate of all messages. 1 This concept of making sure to take Marx' work seriously is the introduction into Schumpeter's discussion of how Marx should be taken. The first thing Schumpeter discusses is Marx as a sociologist. Perhaps the best- known quote of Marx ( and Engels) is ― The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.‖ 2 That is to say that the relation of society within itself is between classes, rather than nations, kingdoms, races, ethnicities, individuals, religions, or otherwise. As many have written and will write, this was a revolutionary idea and essentially a sociological one. Schumpeter echoes that the idea is 1 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 6. 2 Karl Marx and Freidrich Engels, ― Manifesto of the Communist Party,‖ in The Marx- Engels Reader, Second ed. Ed. by Robert C. Tucker ( New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 1978), 473. 14 important and also takes time to explain the significance of Marx' idea in a way that makes clear its gravity. Roughly speaking we may say that the social classes made their entrance in the famous statement contained in the Communist Manifesto that the history of society is the history of class struggles. Of course this is to put the claim at its highest. But even if we tone it down to the proposition that historical events may often be interpreted in terms of class interest and class attitudes and that existing class structures are always an important factor in historical interpretation, enough remains to entitle us to speak of an conception nearly as valuable as was the economic interpretation of history itself. 3 In other words, the point Schumpeter is trying to make is that we may hear those oft quoted words, the very ones I quoted from the Manifesto above, and not catch their meaning at all on a very superficial level. However as we go down and ignore the political charge that our personal prejudices might have, we come to understand that what Marx was referring to was not just a way to interpret history but a way to interpret our relationships one with another. This is the point that Schumpeter makes, because as he points out, there may in fact be some difficulty seeing ― class struggles‖ in historical events, even the ones that happen in our own times and before our own faces, without being either fanatical in our interpretation of Marx— seeing his work and ideas in everything we consider— or ignorant of the whole picture, that ― class struggle‖ has a degree of influence even when it may not be obvious. This is not to say that Schumpeter is all praise when it comes to Marx on the issue of sociology. In fact, Schumpeter is quite critical in his approach on some of the things that Marx stated and implied when it came to society. Schumpeter objects in the text to Marx' assertion that ― class struggle‖ is the end- all, be- all of capitalistic and social problems, to the exclusion of anything else. He argues that a dividing line between bourgeoisie and the proletariat that is distinct and visible for everyone to see, and that is one that is impossibly un- crossable— in great part because of hostility between the two— is untenable. ― The exaggeration of the definiteness and importance of the 3 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 14. 15 dividing line between the capitalist class in that sense and the proletariat was surpassed only by the exaggeration of the antagonism between them.‖ 4 Whether the line between bourgeoisie and proletariat is as distinct or indistinct as Marx or Schumpeter claim is a fascinating topic. We could consider it is as the core ( along with racism) of some of the considerations and observations Michael Eric Dyson makes on the events and responses surrounding Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans. 5 Additionally, we could consider the statement by Alexis De Tocqueville when he described that the wealthy in America ― emerge from the crowd daily and time and again lapse back into it,‖ 6 as describing a situation that we have always had in capitalistic, democratic systems; one where no one, and/ or no one's family is consigned eternally to either bourgeoisie or proletariat as the peasants and aristocrats of England and other domains were/ are consigned. The next subject Schumpeter broaches is Marx as an economist. Again, Schumpeter here describes how the title economist does and does not fit Marx. He begins with pointing out Marx' brilliance in the field: As an economic theorist Marx was first of all a very learned man. It may seem strange that I should think it necessary to give such prominence to this element in the case of an author whom I have called a genius and a prophet. Yet it is important to appreciate it…. But nothing in Marx's economics can be accounted for by any want of scholarship or training in the technique of theoretical analysis. 7 This is very high praise from Schumpeter, indeed. Schumpeter goes on to point out that Marx' work has the fingerprints of the person whom Marx studied the most, the English classical economist, 4 Ibid., 19. 5 For socio- economic considerations of Hurricane Katrina, with special emphasis on racial aspects, see Michael Eric Dyson's text ( especially chapter 8) Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster ( New York: Basic Civitas Books, 2006). 6 Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Trans. Arthur Goldhammer ( New York: Library of America, 2004), 748. 7 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 21. 16 David Ricardo. ― Real understanding of [ Marx'] economics begins with recognizing that, as a theorist, he was a pupil of Ricardo.‖ 8 Schumpeter discusses Marx' work, emphasizing the foundational role value theory has in it, 9 and how essential Marx' Theory of Exploitation is to his argument. 10 Schumpeter discusses at length some of the strengths and flaws of Marx' work in economic terms, particularly that work found in Capital. He gives many, often scathing, criticism of Marx' work ( which lends to the theory that Schumpeter is being satirical in his praise of Marx11), but he ends his discussion on Marx as an economist with a mixed review: ― though Marx was often— sometimes hopelessly— wrong, his critics were far from being always right. Since there were excellent economists among them, the fact should be recorded to his credit, particularly because most of them he was not able to meet himself.‖ 12 The last consideration that Schumpeter makes on Marx and his works is Marx as a teacher. Schumpeter begins this section by pointing out that although there may be flaws in the individual parts of Marx' works, perhaps— Schumpeter wonders in the text— Marx' work is better taken as a whole. ― The main components of the Marxian structure are now before us. What about the imposing synthesis as a whole? The question is not otiose. If ever it is true it is the case that the whole is more important than the sum of the parts.‖ 13 Schumpeter takes the time to review some of the matters that are ― at the heart‖ of Marxism, here. For the most part Schumpeter takes enormous effort to point out that the ideas of Marx have great 8 Ibid., 22. 9 Ibid., 23– 26. 10 Ibid., 26– 28. 11 See Chapter 1. 12 Ibid., 43. 13 Ibid., 45. 17 flaws unless we look at them from the exactly proper angle. Schumpeter ends his discussion on Marx by pointing out that this precise angle takes a lot of effort and ignorance leading those who do so to become Marxists, who follow Marxism. The response that Schumpeter has to such mental maneuvering is a very catchy and poignant saying: ― No serious argument ever supports any ― ism‖ unconditionally.‖ 14 Is Schumpeter's criticism of Marx correct? What is it supposed to mean. After all, as Thomas K. McCraw suggests in his introduction to the Harper Perennial Modern Thought edition of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, it is sometimes hard to be sure what the intention behind Schumpeter's writings is. 15 These are excellent questions that we ought to consider before moving on. One way to think of this section, as well as some others in the text is by considering it as satire about Marxism and Socialism. As Thomas K. McCraw writes in Prophet of Innovation, Parts of it were written in a deadpan satirical style worthy of Jonathan Swift or Mark Twain. Schumpeter does not want to hit the reader over the head with a paean to capitalism, and much of what he writes— particularly in the sections where he seems to be supporting socialist ideas— cannot be taken at face value. 16 This satirical understanding of Capitalism can help make sense of Schumpeter's work, and as the foremost expert on Schumpeter's life and work, it would be presumptuous to argue with McCraw; however, it is important to consider whether a satire of Marx is the whole story behind this criticism of Marx. Earlier I quoted the economist Robert L. Heilbroner in his praise of Schumpeter's understanding of Marx, but the truth is that Heilbroner has far more negative to say on Schumpeter than positive; at least as regards Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Heilbroner writes in his review of the text that, 14 Ibid., 58. 15 McCraw, introduction, XXVI. 16 McCraw, Prophet of Innovation, 348. 18 ― His [ Schumpeter's] rebuttal of Marx is based on a reading that would not be given serious consideration among Marxian scholars today.‖ This is because of the perhaps skewed reading that Schumpeter has and the lack of access to the whole of Marx' works. As Heilbroner continues: ― It is not Schumpeter's fault, of course, that he was not in advance of the contemporary comprehension of Marx. But his attack is not only misdirected as regards its immediate targets but also with respect to its larger conceptual framework.‖ 17 So are Schumpeter's criticisms about Marx correct? There are good arguments on both sides of the question, so the answer is essentially ― maybe,‖ or ― perhaps.‖ But when we examine Capitalism perhaps it is still better to look at what is most important about Schumpeter's work is what is still to come later in the text of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, that concept with which I opened: ― Creative Destruction.‖ The Main Theme Perhaps the main concept contained in the remainder of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy is Schumpeter's conception of the trajectory of contemporary capitalism. This conception, simply stated is that current democratic capitalism will lead eventually toward a socialist system ( as I mentioned in chapter one). In the ― Prologue‖ to part II of Capitalism, Schumpeter begins with the question that I copied down before: ― Can capitalism survive?‖ his answer immediately following being ― No. I do not think it can.‖ He points out that this answer is somewhat boring and pointless if he can't really explain how he came to the conclusion. He explains that at most he can give what are the expected results of observable patterns, thus whatever he writes has a bit of speculation inherent therein. 18 17 Heilbroner, ― Was Schumpeter Right?,‖ 60. 18 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 61. 19 Schumpeter begins the rest of the book with pointing out that although there are the flaws that he pointed out in Marx' work, that the system of capitalism, as Schumpeter knows it, is one that seems destined to transmogrify into socialism, whether he likes it or not. From his analysis he points out that from his perspective he sees socialism as the ― heir apparent‖ to the capitalism he is familiar with. My final conclusion therefore does not differ, however much my argument may, from that of most socialist writers and in particular from that of all Marxists. But in order to accept it one does not need to be a socialist. Prognosis does not imply anything about the desirability of the course of events that one predicts. It a doctor predicts that his patient will die presently, this does not mean that he desires it. One may hate socialism or at least look upon it with cool criticism, and yet foresee its advent. Many conservatives did and do. 19 Schumpeter starts his argument by pointing out the situation in which capitalism works best, in his opinion. He sets the stage for this discussion by pointing out that unlike the feudal system where, as the saying goes, ― might makes right,‖ the capitalist system is one which is driven by intelligence and cleverness. It is not a roulette game where whoever is born with the best physical attributes or to the right family is destined to live a happier life than the physical weakling; it is a poker game where the one who knows how to play her cards and her opponents wins out the day. 20 Schumpeter here gives several pieces of structure that would theoretically help a capitalist society be at its best for all those concerned, but the most important piece, he believes, belongs to the function of the entrepreneur. 21 This is, however, the point at which Schumpeter begins to discuss the problems facing capitalism. ― The essential point to grasp is that in dealing with capitalism we are dealing with an evolutionary 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid., 73– 74. 21 Ibid., 74– 80, 132. 20 process,‖ 22 writes Schumpeter. He writes of how the nature of capitalism is changing and unstable. This is what makes it so unpalatable to so many. It must creatively destroy continuously in order to survive. Schumpeter argues that capitalism must change and adapt and grow new parts in order to work. This changing nature, one that creatively destroys those things before it, is precisely what Marx and Engels referred to with such annoyance23 and which frightens so many comfortable businesspeople every day whose current systems are constantly threatened by newer, more efficient ones they cannot or will not adopt. So in order to provide stability, we in capitalist society seek to ― steady the ship‖ that is capitalism. 24 Schumpeter discusses how as we face crisis after crisis, we seek to make sure that it does not happen again. We all seek that our fortunes, our positions, are left alone. So we give in to regulations, things that do steady the ship. These regulations aren't all bad, obviously, as Charles Wheelan discusses in Naked Economics, we discover that with less government— and government regulations— we get a worse off market and society. 25 However, it is important to realize that we do give up things in order to gain others, similar to how Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, discusses giving up our brutish natures in order to gain mutual peace and protection in society. 26 This is the sort of change that Schumpeter is suggesting will happen from our capitalist society to a socialist one. That it will happen gradually, and that we as members of that society will give up those pieces of capitalist society one by one until we have traded almost all of them for a socialist society. Schumpeter calls this slow, peaceful transition ― mature socialization.‖ 22 Ibid., 82. 23 Marx and Engels, ― Manifesto,‖ 476. 24 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 87. 25 Charles Wheelan, Naked Economics, Fully Revised and Updated ( New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010), 65– 66. 26 Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Parts I and II ( Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merril Company, Inc., 1958), 104– 119. 21 Maturity implies that resistance will be weak and that cooperation will be forthcoming from the greater part of all classes— one symptom of which will be precisely the possibility of carry adoption by a constitutional amendment, i. e., in a peaceful way without break in legal continuity. Ex hypothesi people will understand the nature of the step and even most of those who do not like it will give it a tolerari posse. Nobody will be bewildered or feel that the world is crashing about his ears. 27 If we consider things like the recent U. S. Supreme Court decision at the end of June 2012 to uphold key pieces of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ( PPACA) which requires citizens of the U. S. to carry health insurance as socialist, then we have a prime example of Schumpeter's mature socialization here in the U. S. There are many important points to Schumpeter's discussion about capitalism's transformation into socialism. In fact this discussion that Schumpeter has about how such a thing could happen is the main thrust of what he discusses in Capitalism. There are strengths to the argument as has been mentioned above, including an interesting discussion of how contemporary democratic capitalism may in fact be the last flailing of the feudal system that we have long thought to be discrete from capitalism. 28 Despite the excellent points that Schumpeter brings up, there are also weaknesses to the imagined trajectory that Schumpeter gives, as Heilbroner points out. One such weakness is the consideration that perhaps an added element of bureaucracy like the PPACA is the kind of movement that will save capitalism from becoming socialism, instead of destroying it. 29 The truth is that although these arguments on how capitalism can morph into socialism are the main point that Schumpeter has in the writing of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, they are perhaps not the most important things to extract from the text and Schumpeter. Going back to the introduction that Schumpeter has to the majority of the text that I quoted from earlier, he himself 27 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 221. 28 Ibid., 138– 139. 29 Heilbroner, ― Was Schumpeter Right?‖, 62. 22 reminds us not to take his concepts too seriously, even though there are hundreds of pages' worth of them. Analysis, whether economic or other, never yields more than a statement about the tendencies present in an observable pattern. And these never tell us what will happen to the pattern but only what would happen if they continued to act as they have been acting in the time interval covered by our observation and if no other factors intruded. ― Inevitability‖ or ― necessity‖ can never mean more than this. 30 30 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 61. 23 Chapter 3 Creative Destruction In Schumpeter's Own Words The most important point that we as readers should take away from reading Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy is Schumpeter's definition and description of what he names ― Creative Destruction.‖ In fact, as mentioned above, it is an idea that has for the most part been separated from the work from which it came. As I have mentioned, the argument that Heilbroner brings against Schumpeter's text is for the most part against his prophetic bent, not against the process of Creative Destruction itself. Similarly, although he is more approving of Schumpeter, in Charles Wheelan's excellent text, Naked Economics— which gives a simplified, though not dumbed- down, version of what economics is and what it does— Wheelan gives important emphasis to the idea of Creative Destruction. He attributes the concept to Schumpeter, but never writes a word about the text from which it originated. Just as Wheelan emphasizes, and Heilbroner deemphasizes, the most important concept from Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy is Creative Destruction, although only a few pages are dedicated to the principle in the text. As I began with, the idea of Creative Destruction is a simple one, and it is one that we see happening all the time, all around us in the market system. As a refresher, the process of Creative Destruction is simply when a system, process, or technology comes along that is cheaper, faster, and/ or more efficient than the current one. It is called ― Creative Destruction‖ because of its general tendency to create new opportunity while destroying the old system. When it comes to these new creatively destructive changes we often look back on them quite optimistically. As Charles Wheelan describes it in Naked Economics, ― We look back and speak admiringly of technological breakthroughs like the steam engine, the spinning wheel, and the 24 telephone.‖ However, as Wheelan goes on to explain, ― those advances made it a bad time to be, respectively, a blacksmith, a seamstress, or a telegraph operator.‖ 31 Although the concept of Creative Destruction is simple, and can be explained in a short paragraph, it is something that happens as often as Schumpeter and other have suggested and it is a process that generally creates far more than it destroys. This tendency for Creative Destruction to generate more than it ends is perhaps one of the most important factors of Creative Destruction that must be emphasized in any serious discussion about the process in economics. According to W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm in their article for the 1992 Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas entitled ― The Churn,‖ we can see that although the numbers of workers in certain industries has gone down, the overall number of employed people has gone up. Take for example blacksmiths. According to the data that Cox and Alm gather, there were 238,000 blacksmiths in 1910, however, as of 1992, there were less than 5,000 in the U. S. The question that we must ask ourselves is, do we therefore suffer from a lack of steel or metal goods? Obviously not. Instead we have steelworkers, engineers, and often, we have machines that do the job of the 1910 blacksmith. 32 We see that for every lost blacksmith there has been a gain of a few engineers, many steelworkers, and numerous other support workers for the steel and metal- work industry. Although these are the basics of Creative Destruction, let's return to Schumpeter and discuss how he initially describes it in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. He emphasizes the idea that the capitalist system is one that is necessarily evolutionary, that is, a system that changes and adapts to the situation. Although I quoted it before, it bears repeating; he writes, ― The essential point to grasp is that in dealing with capitalism we are dealing with an evolutionary process.‖ 33 31 Wheelan, Naked, 47. 32 W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, ― The Churn,‖ Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Annual Report, 1992, 7. 33 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 82. 25 We might wish to sit back and say that we don't necessarily need so much constant change. We don't want to end up like the telegraph operators. However, one of the important things to remember about Creative Destruction is that the kind of constant change it names is essential to the capitalist system, i. e. the market economy. As Schumpeter writes, The opening up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from the craft shop and factory to such concerns as U. S. Steel illustrate the same process of industrial mutation— if I may use that biological term— that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism. 34 An echo of this sentiment can also be found in Wheelan's text, Naked Economics, ― Creative destruction is not just something that might happen in a market economy. It is something that must happen.‖ 35 Schumpeter's explanation of Creative Destruction emphasizes that it is so essential to the capitalist system that the system would cease to function without it. Creative Destruction is all around us. Without electricity- wired homes creatively destroying the indoor- natural gas lighting industry, we would have quite a few more deaths by carbon monoxide poisoning, or by fires. The computer and Internet industries have been creatively destroying and/ or have already decimated the typewriter, encyclopedia, and physical post/ mail industries. Because of creative destruction, we have modern medicine. We have a society where the job of healing that used to belong to barbers ( because they had the tools for bloodletting) now belongs to the current array of pharmacists, physicians, and surgeons— and barbers happily can avoid any and all blood. Creative Destruction is a process that is not only important, but is also one that makes us better off and arguably happier. 34 Ibid., 83. 35 Wheelan, Naked, 47. 26 Creative Destruction and Protectionism Despite its benefits and its fundamental role to capitalism, Creative Destruction has its share of resistance. The truth of the matter is that no one likes to be the one displaced by new technology. The American folktale about John Henry, attempting to prove his superiority as a steel driver compared to a steam- powered machine, is an example of this resistance to being outmoded. In his story, John Henry usually wins the race, but loses his life doing it. Perhaps the reason John Henry's tale became folklore in the first place has to do with its relevance to so many of us. We all seem to fear to one extent or another being displaced by Creative Destruction. Because of this fear, individuals, firms, industries, and nations will seek to defend themselves from the obsolescence that the process of Creative Destruction threatens to bring them. This defensiveness is a natural reaction that all organic life shares. In fact, defensiveness is essential to the instinct to survive. It is essential for day to day existence. This positive, natural defensiveness can be seen all around. In order to defend against muscle loss in old age, a person will begin weight lifting. In order to defend against a potential loss, a person or a firm will pay for insurance. In order to defend against financial setbacks, people will put money into a ― rainy- day fund.‖ These are ways in which human beings defend against their own downfall in ways that prevent dangerous and destructive downfalls. However, when humans seek to defend against changes at the expense of the possibility for greater growth and prosperity this defensiveness is referred to as ― protectionism.‖ To be sure, protectionism is a form of xenophobia or the fear of the unknown or alien. In this case the ― unknown‖ is the future. It is a fear of things tomorrow being unrecognizable in comparison with today. Doubtless, most who are capable of considering the existence of a ― tomorrow‖ have some fear of the possible events of ― tomorrow;‖ however, the problem with protectionism is how that fear is handled. Protectionism seeks to make sure the nothing tomorrow 27 changes. The irony of the protectionist impulse to keep things ― unspoiled‖ is that so often the actions that the protectionist takes in order to avoid that which she does not desire will likely make changes she would be unhappy with anyway. Somewhat obvious and egregious examples of protectionism can be seen in many situations in history. Take the American auto industry in the 1970s and 1980s. Instead of defending itself by investing in greater innovation and creating better products, the industry lobbied the U. S. government to protect from Japanese imports. As pertaining to economics, protectionism can retard matters to the degree that the benefits for the whole of human society ( or at least local society) which would be gained by adopting a new creatively destructive system are replaced by continued or increased stagnation for that society. However, despite what would seem to be obvious obstinacy, this protectionism comes from a desire to preserve the system that is in place for those which are enjoying its benefits and which would likely suffer by the system's destruction. However as has been suggested, and as has been proven regularly, Creative Destruction's new systems generally create more than they destroy. 36 But as Schumpeter points out, we can only say that they create more than they destroy when we see all of these things as contiguous rather than limited. 37 But what about premature adoption? Is it protectionistic to want to avoid spending time and resources on a process or technology that will become obsolete soon anyway? Schumpeter reminds us that premature adoption is a rational thing to want to avoid. It is the problem many technophiles have currently with Blu- ray technology. If the technophile understands that soon enough she's going to just have all of her movie collection in ― the Cloud‖ anyway, she has every right to just skip over and not buy any Blu- rays or a Blu- ray player. Schumpeter puts it this way: 36 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 68; Wheelan, Naked, 46– 48. 37 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 83– 84 28 A new type of machine is in general but a link in a chain of improvements and may presently become obsolete. In a case like this it would obviously not be rational to follow the chain link by link regardless of the capital loss to be suffered each time. The real question then is at which link the concern should take action. 38 So is a particular defensiveness protectionism or not? How do we tell? The answer, of course, comes that each situation must be judged on a case by case basis. However, the point to remember most about protectionism is that it comes out of fear and it is an irrational resistance to change. It is the desire to protect one's own interest turns into a complete disregard for any potential for growth or opportunity. 38 Ibid., 98. 29 Is There Something More to Creative Destruction? Creative Destruction, as can be seen by the discussion so far, is something important on many levels to capitalism. It provides the fuel to move forward, as well as the adaptability needed for any change that may come along. Schumpeter's idea is a robust one that provides those who study it with a better understanding of the world around us. Understanding the fact that Creative Destruction happens helps us to understand the concerns of ― outsourcing‖ jobs, as well as regular economic growth, better. Understanding it helps us to see how avoiding it can be a perilous path. A proper understanding of Creative Destruction can help us to see opportunities when we might be more naturally inclined to be fearful. As I have studied this principle it has caused me to think of whether it could be applied in other places. I wonder, as you may have, whether Creative Destruction is a principle that is confined to economics. As I have mused about the subject I do not believe it is merely an economic principle, in fact, I believe that Creative Destruction can be seen in places that are surprising and helpful. It is my intent then to show that Joseph Schumpeter's principle of Creative Destruction is one which is so naturally recurring in the world around us that it can be found in a myriad of places in its whole, and because of that, it is also an important lens that we can use to examine things like literature and other works of fiction in order to obtain an interpretation of them. Perhaps equally important is that science, philosophy, and literature, with the processes that occur in them, can probably teach much about Creative Destruction to us as well, allowing us to understand the facets of it in new ways. 30 31 Part II Creative Destruction in the World Around Us 32 33 Chapter 4 Darwin, Pandas' Thumbs, and Punctuation: Creative Destruction and Biological Evolution Similarities The first relationship to Creative Destruction that we should consider is the one that is most often made when describing Creative Destruction, that is, that it is an ― evolutionary process.‖ If Creative Destruction is indeed an evolutionary process then we should examine how strong of a similarity it bears to biological evolution. For example, as we have covered before, Schumpeter himself writes that ― in dealing with capitalism we are dealing with an evolutionary process.‖ And he continues this thought by referring to the process of Creative Destruction as akin to the mutative and ever- changing processes found in biology. Schumpeter even discusses how although new things are coming into the market all the time, it is the one that is best suited to the situation at hand that really flourishes and creatively destroys the process or processes preceding it. 1 Additionally, Wheelan avers this idea in Naked Economics when he discusses the nature of the market system. ― The market is like evolution; it is an extraordinarily powerful force that derives its strength from rewarding the swift, the strong, and the smart.‖ However, Wheelan is quick to point out that this is not to say that the market system is something that will eventually create some sort of uber- company, just as biological evolution is not a process that will eventually create some kind of super- creature. Real market systems, just as real evolution, produce the entity that is best suited to the situation. 2 1 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 82– 83, 90. 2 Wheelan, Naked, 21. 34 For example, it is interesting to consider the fact that Target supplies more needs than does Apple in the market. Because of this Target is arguably the better corporation, more able to adapt to change than Apple, Inc. is. However the financial statements of the two different companies tell a different story. Apple, Inc. had $ 108.2 billion in sales, with $ 25.9 billion in net income, during their 2011 fiscal year, while Target had $ 69.9 billion in sales, with $ 2.9 billion in net income, during their 2011 fiscal year. Arguably, Target has a better swath of products, providing clothing, food, other household goods, music, and even occasionally Apple, Inc. products as well; but it is beat out in financial earnings by Apple. 3 So for now at least, Apple is in a better position than Target is, and is more suited to the world in which we currently live. In the market system, companies constantly vie for consumers and for scarce resources. The companies that survive are the ones that can acquire these things best and easiest because of the tools they have developed. Apple can arguably do so well as a company because it can get its supplies for the right price and can make iPhones, iPads, iMacs, and all the other ― i‖ s that people want to use their own scarce resources to obtain. And because Apple is so good at what it does there are several other companies that have fallen by the wayside for whatever reason, including the one that gave Apple its idea for the personal computer in the first place: Xerox. 4 3 Apple Inc., ― Apple Reports First Quarter Results,‖ Apple Inc., http:// www. apple. com/ pr/ library/ 2011/ 01/ 18Apple- Reports- First- Quarter- Results. html ( accessed July 26, 2012); ― Apple Reports Second Quarter Results,‖ Apple Inc., http:// www. apple. com/ pr/ library/ 2011/ 04/ 20Apple- Reports- Second- Quarter- Results. html ( accessed July 26, 2012); ― Apple Reports Third Quarter Results,‖ Apple Inc., http:// www. apple. com/ pr/ library/ 2011/ 07/ 19Apple- Reports- Third- Quarter- Results. html ( accessed July 26, 2012); ― Apple Reports Fourth Quarter Results,‖ Apple Inc., http:// www. apple. com/ pr/ library/ 2011/ 10/ 18Apple- Reports- Fourth- Quarter- Results. html ( accessed July 26, 2012); Target, ― Target 2011 Annual Report,‖ Target, http:// sites. target. com/ site/ en/ company/ page. jsp? contentId= WCMP04- 061601 ( accessed July 26, 2012). 4 Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs, ( New York: Simon & Schuster, 2011), 94– 101; Henry Chesbrough, ― Graceful Exits and Missed Opportunities: Xerox's Management of It's Technology Spin- off Organizations,‖ The Business History Review 76, no. 4 ( Winter 2002) 803– 837. 35 When we turn to the father of evolution, Charles Darwin, we get a similar sounding story about biological evolution and natural selection to the one that we have just covered for the market system. As in each fully stocked country natural selection necessarily acts by the selected form having some advantage in the struggle for life over other forms, there will be a constant tendency in the improved descendants of any one species to supplant and exterminate in each stage of descent their predecessors and their original parent. For it should be remembered that the competition will generally be most severe between those forms which are most nearly related to each other in habits, constitution, and structure. Hence all the intermediate forms between the earlier and later states, that is between the less and more improved state of a species, as well as the original parent- species itself, will generally tend to become extinct. 5 It should be of little surprise that the language and ideas contained in this excerpt from Darwin's On the Origin of Species is so similar to that which we have covered when considering Creative Destruction. Note that Darwin points out that the new species that come along ― exterminate‖ the ones that precede it or that it can outperform in a given situation where the two species are competing over the resources that sustain life and therefore starve out the other species, just as the new technologies and systems that are creatively destructive supplant the ones that came before them. Biological evolution is also similar to Creative Destruction in that it is a ceaseless process. From the beginning of life on Earth, there has been biological evolution, and from the beginning of the market system, there has been capitalist Creative Destruction. As Douglas J. Futuyma puts it in his Evolution textbook, without evolution, biology doesn't make full sense: ― The evolutionary perspective illuminates every subject in biology, from molecular biology to ecology. Indeed, evolution is the unifying theory of biology.‖ 6 Similarly, we cannot fully explain the changes in a unified manner that have happened in technology, microeconomic markets, macroeconomic markets, or even the 5 Charles Darwin, ― The Origin of Species ( 1859)‖ Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, ed. Philip Appleman, Third ed. ( New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2001), 130. 6 Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution ( Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2005), 1. 36 changes in governmental business and trade policy without an understanding of Creative Destruction. There is also a clear relationship between these two concepts in another point; that they are both essential and natural in the domain in which they occupy. None of the biological systems or species that exist now would be here without evolution. In other words, we would not be here if it weren't for our ancestors. We can put a bit more of a value judgment on the systems and technologies that are here because of Creative Destruction and say that none of the very good technologies and systems that we currently have would be here, such as clean water systems, advanced medicines and health care, and safe living quarters, were it not for them displacing the poorer quality ones that came before them. Progeny and Pandas' Thumbs Perhaps the only major difference between biological evolution and the kind of evolution that comes with Creative Destruction is the kinds of relationships the biologically evolved have with their predecessors and the kind of relationships that the creatively destructive systems have with theirs. That is, biological evolution generally means that the successors to the ― area‖ occupied by the former species are often directly related to their predecessors, being the children, grandchildren, or nth great grandchild of the supplanted species. As Futuyma puts it in his textbook, ― Groups of organisms, which we may call populations, undergo decent with modification.‖ 7 Obviously this is not the case with the organizations that use the systems and/ or technologies that supplant their predecessors, because so often the new organization will have little or nothing directly to do with the forerunner that it is creatively destroying. This is actually a point that Schumpeter is quite clear about 7 Ibid., 2. 37 as being part of the reasoning behind protectionism. 8 For as the evolved progeny of a biological parent will generally be protected by the instincts of that parent, such is quite the opposite with a company that starts with an adversarial relationship with the other companies it is likely to ruin. Additionally, the manner in which biological evolution arises in order to adapt to a situation and to give an advantage to a specific species is an important difference to the process of Creative Destruction. Take for example the prime illustration given as the inspiration for the title of Stephen Jay Gould's text, The Panda's Thumb. Gould describes to us how interesting it is that although the structure of the human hand and the Panda's paw are similar, the ― thumb‖ that each species has is different. Ours is the inner digit to each hand, one of five. However, the panda's thumb is actually derived from a wrist bone, the radial sesamoid. Both species' thumbs have a similar use and purpose, but came at a different time, after the digit that is our thumb became part of their five digit, non- opposing paw. 9 The panda's thumb arose because the panda needed a tool that would strip the leaves off of bamboo stalks, so over time the panda's ancestors used what was most readily available to it, not necessarily what we with our finger- thumbs might assume to be the best tool for the job. The kind of evolution that we refer to when speaking of Creative Destruction has a different source. We are that source, actually. We, as humans, provide what Schumpeter refers to as the ― entrepreneurial function:‖ We have seen that the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the pattern of production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up a new source of supply of materials or a new outlet for products, by reorganizing an industry and so on. 10 8 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 96. 9 Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb, First ed. ( New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1980), 19– 26. 10 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 132. 38 A way of putting this into context of what we've been covering is to say that the entrepreneurial function is to take an active role in seeking out the change that the entrepreneur sees as possible. There is an element of engaged invention when it comes to Creative Destruction, one that is much more immediate, directed, and intentional than the innovation inherent in biological evolution. Nonetheless, although the differences between the two are great in terms of how the evolution comes about, it is significant to remember that biological evolution and Creative Destruction both perform a similar function in the kind of change that takes place over time in their respective spheres. Additionally, they both function overall in the same way, regardless of the how and the why of their respective functions. Punctuated Equilibriums Aside from the similarities and differences above, there is an interesting piece to Creative Destruction that finds a parallel in a concept of biological evolution proposed by Stephen Jay Gould, that of ― punctuated equilibrium.‖ Punctuated equilibrium is a concept that Gould and paleontologist Niles Eldridge proposed to better explain the nature of evolution over time. The problem was in something that Darwin wrote about in The Origin of Species; that due to the lack of geological, fossil evidence because of erosion, earthquake, and catastrophe, it would be very difficult to prove his conception that species evolve gradually over time. 11 Since Darwin wrote about this ― geological problem,‖ many evolutionary biologists have sought to vindicate, discredit or modify the idea. What Gould and Eldridge discovered in their research and wrote about in their work on punctuated equilibrium is that Darwin was more or less wrong in his assumption that evolution happens in a slow, gradual process. What Eldridge and Gould's research showed was that the vast majority of species, instead ― originate by 11 Darwin, ― Origin,‖ 147– 151. 39 splitting, and that the standard tempo of speciation, when expressed in geological time, features origin in a geological moment followed by long persistence in stasis.‖ They also pointed out that this was on the species level, as opposed to so many other theories, thus providing for continuing evolution in the larger biological framework while certain species remain static. 12 In other words, the system proposed by Gould and Eldridge was a system which showed that evolution was not something that for each individual species was constantly happening, but that evolution happened in certain species lines by a significant change followed by thousands of years of continuity. Although many controversies have arisen from their work, between their own and others' research, Gould and Eldridge have been vindicated, much like Darwin and his work. 13 Additionally the theories of Gould on punctuated equilibrium have continued to be advanced by other biologists. This includes much work in the field of evolutionary developmental biology wherein much research has been done to discover the origins of new and novel evolutionary changes. 14 The importance of discussing punctuated equilibrium in our dialogue of Creative Destruction comes down to something that Schumpeter writes in a note when he introduces the concept in Capitalism. The note contains an aside that helps us to understand the nature of Creative Destruction— and its connection to punctuated equilibrium should be quite clear. Schumpeter writes about the changes and evolution inherent in Creative Destruction, pointing out after his statement that Creative Destruction is incessantly revolutionary, and continual, that, 12 Stephen Jay Gould, Punctuated Equilibrium, first paperback ed. ( Cambridge Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007), 52. 13 Ibid., 62– 171; John Lyne and Henry F. Howe, ―‖ Punctuated Equilibria‖: Rhetorical Dynamics of a Scientific Controversy,‖ in Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, ed. Randy Allen Harris ( Mahwah, New Jersey: Hermagoras Press, 1997), 69– 86. 14 For a complete discussion see the topological reader, Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, edited by Gerd B. Müller and Stuart A. Newman ( Cambridge, Massachussetts: The MIT Press, 2003). 40 Those revolutions are not strictly incessant; they occur in discrete rushes which are separated from each other by spans of comparative quiet. The process as a whole works incessantly however, in the sense that there always is either revolution or absorption of the results of revolution, both together forming what are known as business cycles. 15 In other words, just as we've been discussing with punctuated equilibrium, Creative Destruction does happen all the time, in an unending process, but when looking at what we consider individual events in economic history, we may often find a kind of balance and stasis that goes on. We see this all the time when we see stores, or restaurants that have a relatively steady following and then a new, better, or trendier place comes in and ― poof,‖ the place we always ate lunch at is gone. We see it on the system, industry, and even political levels as well. The similarity between punctuated equilibrium and Creative Destruction are unavoidably evident. When it all comes down to it, biological evolution and Creative Destruction are more similar than they are different, making credible the claims of economists that the one is like the other. In fact, understanding one of these concepts likely makes understanding the other much easier and more straightforward. 15 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 83, footnote 2. 41 Chapter 5 The Life of Stars and Cosmic Contiguity: Creative Destruction and Astrophysics Coming from a discussion about the similarities between biological evolution and Creative Destruction, perhaps the best thing to consider next is another phenomenon in the scientific domain that seems to have parallels with Creative Destruction. We therefore turn our attention to astrophysics, and to a barely lesser degree, cosmology. If Creative Destruction is as common as I have suggested, then is it so common it happens on quantum and stellar levels? Of course it does. J. Craig Wheeler, a prominent astronomer and expert on supernovae in his text Cosmic Catastrophes: Exploding Stars, Black Holes, and Mapping the Universe discusses the interesting interconnection that stars and stellar fusion have with so many other things that we take for granted. He writes, We look up on a dark night and wonder at the stars in their brilliant isolation. The starts are not, however, truly isolated. They are one remarkable phase in a web of interconnections that unite them with the Universe and with us as human beings. These connections range from physics on the tiniest microscopic scale to the grandest reaches in the Universe. 1 The Life of a Star ( Not the Human Kind) An interesting parallel is comparing Creative Destruction to the process that gives us light and life on this planet, that is to say the process of stellar fusion. The process of stellar fusion, or more properly, thermonuclear fusion, is what makes a star, such as the Sun, shine and burn. Thermonuclear fusion is essentially a creatively destructive process because of how it works. Fusion, as the name of the term denotes, is a process by which two or more particles are fused or merged together to make one or more other particles. In stellar ( thermonuclear) fusion this process occurs, in the simplest terms, by the bonding of multiple hydrogen atoms into a single helium atom. 1 J. Craig Wheeler, Cosmic Catastrophes: Exploding Stars, Black Holes, and Mapping the Universe, Second ed. ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 1. 42 The hydrogen atoms, as they were from our human point of view and/ or measurement, no longer exist. They have been replaced by the helium atoms, as it were, and through that reaction give off the heat that we experience from the star, and through a chain of reactions also give off the visible spectrum of light that we so often use to see on Earth. Thermonuclear fusion creates helium, and has a great effect on everything else we take for granted around us. 2 As we have seen with Creative Destruction and biological evolution, thermonuclear fusion is a common occurrence in the universe that we observe; indeed every star we see is shining by the same process. It is a common process that the processes and materials in the universe depend on, for without the light created by the Sun we would not be here, without the gravity that comes from the Sun, and other stars matter in the universe would be in a very different state. Thermonuclear fusion and the stars that embody that process is also a creatively destructive force in that it not only creates new elements on the nuclear scale with said reactions' quantum effects as well, but it also changes and forges the universe as we see it. Continuing a bit after we left off from Wheeler above, he writes that the stars ― produce the heavy elements necessary to make not only planets buy also life as we know it.‖ He goes on to state that, ― The elements forged in stars compose humans who wonder about the nature of it all. Our origin and fate are bound to that of the stars.‖ 3 Stars, fusion, and the forces that are exerted by these have given birth to an innumerable amount of things that go on to create others. These forces are what are at the origin of our own existence. They also destroy the old things that existed beforehand in their processes, from changing the organization of sub- atomic particles to moving and disintegrating matter that gets in the way of their magnificent processes. The life of the universe is very much a process of Creative Destruction. 2 Ibid., 17– 21. 3 Ibid., 1. 43 Interconnection and Contiguity Up to this point we have hinted in our examinations of Creative Destruction at the ideas of interconnection and contiguity. Schumpeter describes this interconnection as an essential piece of the process of Creative Destruction. The problem that we face so often with examining business cycles is trying to discern where they began. We have things like the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent economic recession, and we wonder openly as to where such a thing could have started. Although political pundits may tell the story differently, the honest truth is that such a massive problem could only have come from a massive quantity of sources, likely numbering in the thousands or even millions. We must understand that every decision, change, or event comes because of a multitude of sources. As Schumpeter puts it, Since we are dealing with an organic process, analysis of what happens in any particular part of it— say, in an individual concern or industry— may indeed clarify details of mechanism but is inconclusive beyond that. Every piece of business strategy acquires its true significance only against the background of that process and within the situation created by it. It must be seen in its role in the perennial gale of creative destruction; it cannot be understood irrespective of it or, in fact, on the hypothesis that there is a perennial lull. 4 In other words, although we may be able to see particular patterns as we examine certain elements as separate and distinct and learn from the exercise in separation, we cannot understand things in their whole context without a much larger picture. Key to understanding Creative Destruction therefore comes from seeing the economic events we are examining as the intersection of the web of events that preceded and paralleled them. It is an incomplete understanding of things to see them as discrete and unique. 4 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 83– 84. 44 This extremely important piece to Creative Destruction has an important similarity when it comes to the understanding of the life of stars and physics in general. Going back to Wheeler, and the quote given above, it is essential to see the interconnection of stars, and understand their inseparability from the other pieces and processes of the universe. Even simply in relation to one another Wheeler points out that stars ― are born from great clouds of gas and return matter to those clouds, seeding new stars.‖ 5 However, when we are considering the universe and its lack of individuality we get down to the very nature at the heart of the universe itself. We seem to be on a constant quest for finding what is the smallest thing that can be called a thing, as pertaining to physics. Humans have discovered that essential to the things we see around us are their elements, so we named, measured and quantified those, making a periodic table of elements. We have looked deeper and discovered sub- atomic particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons, but we look even deeper and find quarks and other still smaller pieces. One of the main points of debate currently in physics and the related sciences is whether the smallest thing might not be strings or some other thing. We want to find the smallest separate thing, but we keep trying to dig deeper, never being satisfied. We can find one of the responses to this search in a number of essays by physicist David Bohm. Bohm is famous for a number of his contributions including his work that was used as part of the efforts on the Manhattan Project to create the first atomic weapons. In addition, Bohm had a great interest in the nature of consciousness. 6 What Bohm adds to this conversation is in regards to this seemingly unending drive to find the smallest thing in the universe. Bohm proposes in his work that perhaps the problem with this drive is the very idea that these things are separate and discrete, just as Schumpeter argued in regards to 5 Wheeler, Cosmic Catastrophes, 1. 6 Lee Nichol, editor's introduction to The Essential David Bohm, Ed. Lee Nichol ( London: Routledge, 2003) 1. 45 Creative Destruction. Bohm referred to the inclination to perceive things as separate and distinct on anything more than a superficial level or scale as a ― mechanistic‖ view. He wrote about this concept pointing out that although things may seem discrete and separate, and that that can be useful for certain activities, calculations, or understanding, this discrete view of things is the ― explicate order‖ of things. 7 We are generally inclined to believe that things are separate and discrete from one another. After all, the cup on my desk is easy enough to pick up and separate from the desk, when I go to do the magician's proof of waving my other hand around the cup to prove to myself and others that it is indeed separate, my waving hand doesn't hit anything, nor can I see any connection between the cup and the desk anymore. There is no reason for us to believe that these things, any more than any other physical objects are connected once they seem separated in such manners. David Bohm even points out this point in his essay ― Physics and Perception,‖ ― Nothing seems more obvious than the notion of a permanent quantity of substance.‖ 8 However, as we become more familiar with the nature of things on larger scales ( i. e. a stellar level, a galactic level, and so on) or perhaps more revealingly on a smaller scale such as the microscopic, the molecular, the atomic, and the sub- atomic, as we have examined, we become familiar with the concept that what may be separate on one scale has no separation on another. Bohm points out in his work that if we persist in our view of separation regardless of scale we run into a misunderstanding of the nature of the universe. This nature that Bohm suggests is his ― Implicate Order.‖ Bohm argues that the mechanistic order that we may use to explain everything's relationship 7 David Bohm, ― The Enfolding- Unfolding Universe and Consciousness,‖ in The Essential David Bohm, Ed. Lee Nichol ( London: Routledge, 2003) 80. 8 David Bohm, ― Physics and Perception,‖ in The Essential David Bohm, Ed. Lee Nichol ( London: Routledge, 2003) 48. 46 to everything else, i. e. that each ― thing‖ that we identify is essentially separate, leads to problems that need more and more scales to understand the relation of these ― things‖ one to another. 9 Bohm uses the example of how if we consider the key features of quantum theory in a mechanistic, fractured universe there arise many problems, however when we stop considering things like electrons in the mechanical sense, like pieces of an engine, and start to see things more along the lines of the organs of a living being— connected, and inseparable— we start to catch the true order of things. 10 The best example that Bohm gives of how Implicate Order works is when he describes the comparison between the fish- tank/ cameras and the Einstein, Podosky and Rosen experiment. He explains a hypothetical set- up where two video cameras are set directly facing two adjacent sides of a full and occupied fish tank; the images from these cameras being projected onto two different television screens. 11 Bohm compares this set- up to the Einstein, Podosky, Rosen experiment wherein was discovered that two particles, after having been first unified and then separated, continued to show connections that would only occur normally if the particles had remained unified. 12 Bohm goes on to describe how the experiment by those three famous physicists can be described approximately as the particles being discrete, ― More generally, however, the two atoms will show the typical non- local correlation of behavior which implies that, more deeply,‖ they are better described along the lines we have been discussing: continuous and connected, as implied with Bohm's Implicate Order. 13 9 Bohm, ― Enfolding- Unfolding,‖ 80– 83. 10 Ibid., 84. 11 Ibid., 94. 12 Ibid., 94– 96. 13 Ibid., 96. 47 This understanding of the nature of things in Bohm's Implicate Order can also help us to understand better what Schumpeter was describing with things in economics being inseparable and connected. If we see a firm, occupation, industry, or nation on a scale that makes them separate, that will cause problems. If we see it as a firm among firms we misunderstand it when it would be closer to view it rather as a firm that occupies a place in history and the economy with sources that stretch back, out, and forward in ways that cannot be fully observed, somewhat like a mountain; it is only a topographic rise, not an individual hunk of rock in the face of the earth. We can also see that misunderstandings, which cause a protectionist reaction against Creative Destruction, could be more of a matter of seeing things only on a certain scale or in a certain timeframe is further reinforced by what Schumpeter writes: Since we are dealing with a process whose every element takes considerable time in revealing its true features and ultimate effects, there is no point in appraising the performance of that process ex visu of a given point of time; we must judge its performance over time as it unfolds through decades or centuries. 14 Although Bohm's idea of an Implicate Order has its detractors, much else of what he has written over time has been reexamined and vindicated, which may mean that the Implicate Order will one day be vindicated as well. 15 However, it does not detract from the poignancy and though- provoking nature the idea of an implicate order has, nor does it detract from the importance of Schumpeter's point about contiguity in economics and its non- economic relativity. Additionally, we can see from the things we have covered here the similarities between Schumpeter's concept and principles of astrophysics. Just as with our understanding of biology, our understanding can be aided by having knowledge of Schumpeter's Creative Destruction, as well as 14 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 83. 15 Russell Olwell, ― Physical Isolation and Marginalization in Physics: David Bohm's Cold War Exile,‖ Isis, 90, no. 4 ( Dec., 1999), 738– 756. 48 our understanding of Creative Destruction is helped by being familiar with the life- cycle of stars, and the nature and order of the universe itself. 49 Chapter 6 Dukkha, Anatta, and Nirvana: Creative Destruction and Buddhism Understanding Buddhism Buddhism is a way of life that began in the Asian subcontinent about five hundred years before the Christian era. This way of life was introduced by an individual we now commonly refer to as the Buddha. ― Buddha,‖ as opposed to what so many in the western world now believe is a title, not a name. The truth is; no one can verify that individual's actual name, which is probably just as he would have wanted it, for he often emphasized the importance of his ― middle way,‖ as opposed to the importance of himself. The Buddha is the one who introduced teachings that would help others achieve nirvana or enlightenment. Nirvana is not to be confused with the idea of heaven, but as achieving an understanding that will free those who gain it. It will free them from dukkha, or what is often translated as ― suffering.‖ Perhaps a good way of understanding the point of Buddhism is to realize that it is not to get into the good graces of Deity, or to even achieve happiness, but just as said above, to learn how to overcome dukkha. It is the way to achieve harmony with everything around us, and to accept reality as it is. Buddhism therefore should not really be seen as a religion, or even exactly as a philosophy ( though approaching it that way may help a westerner understand it better), but as I introduced it, a way of life, or as the Buddha called it himself, ― the middle way.‖ Anatta and the Implicate Order Understanding David Bohm's Implicate Order can be helpful when attempting to understand Buddhism. In Buddhism a key principle in general, and especially in relation to our discussion of 50 Creative Destruction, is the idea of anatta, ( translated into English as the ― non- self‖). This principle's key feature is the notion an individual has that there is a ― self‖ essential to them— a part that is essential and unchanging— is an illusion. This illusion of a self, according to Buddhism, is one of the things that causes dukkha. The essence of the idea of ― self‖ is that there is a separation inherent to each individual, that each individual is fundamentally apart from others. However, in Buddhism, this idea of separation among individuals causes suffering because it denies the contiguous nature of everything, creating loneliness when there is no thing that is alone. The understanding of anatta, the non- self, is essential in Buddhism, and key to an essential Buddhist principle, that is the cessation of suffering. According to Mark Siderits in Buddhism as Philosophy, the Buddha taught that there is suffering, and suffering is ― originally dependent‖ on a chain of events with ignorance of the nature of things being the original link on this chain. 1 The Buddha taught what this nature of life is that we become ignorant of. It is ignorance of the fact that all sentient existence is characterized by ― impermanence, suffering, and non- self‖ 2 Impermanence is, of course, the fact that things do not remain the same. For example, as Siderits explains, ― we get toothaches because healthy teeth are impermanent‖ 3. That is to say that healthy teeth do not stay healthy. That healthy state changes, and that change is because of impermanence, and everything is affected by impermanence. 4 1 This chain is referred to as the ― twelve linked chain of dependent origination,‖ which essentially describes a chain of actions and reactions that reinforce the ideas that cause suffering. 2 Mark Siderits, Buddhism as Philosophy: An Introduction, ( Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2007) 18 ( 18– 27). 3 Ibid., 20. 4 An important concept to understanding impermanence comes to a certain degree from the way things are phrased. When speaking about impermanence we do not say that something is impermanent; especially because this would cause a bit of a logical conundrum. That is to say, that if something is impermanent then it can change states again as the verb ― is‖ refers to a point in time thus creating the possibility of something changing again to be something besides impermanent so that we would have to say that it was impermanent. We therefore discuss impermanence simply stating that ― there is impermanence.‖ 51 Suffering is that distress that happens when we consider all of the impermanence that affects us. Even good things, such as a great day doing something we love, with someone we love, has impermanence, because that great day will end and at some point that relationship with the one we love will change or cease. Things come to an end and we come to an end because of impermanence. This is where the understanding of anatta becomes essential. Understanding anatta is the appreciation that there never was an ― I‖ or a ― me‖ that suffers; according to Siderits, in Buddhism it means the very concept that there is an essence that suffers is an illusion. 5 In Buddhism, when we fail to understand anatta we only continue our cycle of suffering, denying the impermanence that exists. Perhaps a good way of putting this that connects it to our previous discussion of Bohm's Implicate Order is that when we think in terms of having a self, we are seeing things in a separated, discrete way that prevents us from understanding their contiguous or impermanent nature. Take for example seeing myself as a body that is sitting at this desk typing: I am a little over six feet tall; I have ten fingers, and ten toes, a certain hairstyle and set of clothing. These all make up the self that I have right now. But if I wear certain different kinds of clothes, or a different style of haircut I would say that I don't feel like myself. But what if I wore the same clothes I wore when I was ten years old? I would probably say, if they even fit, that wearing them made me not ― feel like myself,‖ as many others in that position might. But am I not somehow the same person? There suddenly becomes a problem, at least on the rhetorical level, of what ― myself‖ means because it apparently does change. The same can be said about my relationship to my family. ― I am a Killgore,‖ I say proudly. That statement has several implications. Theoretically it means I look, act, and think a certain way, as well as associate myself with others who call themselves ― Killgore‖ too. But am I not an individual? Yes, 5 Ibid., 26– 27. 52 but… well, I hope we all begin to see the problem. I am somehow simultaneously an individual and part of a collective. On one scale I am alone, on another I am only a piece of a whole. Here is our connection to Bohm's Implicate Order, as well as helping us understand something essential to Buddhism. When we speak of non- self in Buddhism this is part of what we mean; that although on a certain level we might be able to consider ourselves as individuals, that perception only holds true on a certain level. It is not absolutely true. The origin of dukkha is therefore the attempt to hold onto that separation, that individuality, on any other level on which it is not true, or ignoring the fact that there are so many more levels on which it is not true. In this way we can see how Buddhism is an essentially creatively destructive way of life in that what one seeks as an adherent of Buddhism is to destroy the false concepts one has about the nature of life and replace them with correct understanding. In this path there may be many destructions. Indeed, Buddhism does not deny that there can be many positive effects on an individual even while one carries the concept of having a self, but each step towards enlightenment means the destruction of a false notion that blocked that step. Dukkha, Anatta, Impermanence, Creative Destruction and Protectionist Stifling When we compare the ideas we have discussed and the Buddhist idea of impermanence, we start to get a glimpse of how these two things relate to one another. However, there is another connection between Buddhism and Creative Destruction that is related to understanding things as not being discrete, but contiguous and connected, and that is the suffering that is caused by viewing things as discrete and separate, or in the case of economics, the stifling of opportunity and change that happens when we engage in economic protectionism. 53 We discussed before in Part I how protectionism is essentially in opposition to Creative Destruction. Economic protectionism is essentially a desire to have one's position in any given trade be shielded and remain the same, receiving the same amount for each trade, for both means of production and for finished products. As we have discussed before, this desire to protect, conserve, and remain the same is an instinctual and attractive one. However, protectionism is usually accomplished by attempting to fend off competitors improperly or artificially create barriers to trade. But the notion and side- effects of protectionism comes from a false understanding of the nature of capitalism. This false understanding is similar to the understanding that there is an entity to protect from the suffering caused by the change inherent in Creative Destruction. Schumpeter described how when we attempt to separate the firm or individual entity from everything else, economically, we are taking a false view of things, as we discussed with Bohm's Implicate Order. 6 In other words neither a creatively destructive process nor an entity can be examined without its effects on everything else, and that effect cannot be measured solely by the time period of the entity's official opening and closing dates. When we engage in this discrete view of economics, just as with falsely believing in a self from the perspective of Buddhism, we will almost inevitably end up engaging in protection of something that is going to change anyway, which will often end in stifling our own potential as employees, firms, industries and even nations. If we understand the idea that nothing can be separated from the rest of economics, we see that there is no ― self‖ or separateness inherent in any given firm, occupation, industry, or country. Each has far reaching effects that may have no real end to the effects it makes on the remainder. 6 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 83. 54 Although there is much more to Buddhism, and the concepts from it that we have discussed here, it is easy to see the connections between Buddhism and Creative Destruction from what we have discussed. The middle path to enlightenment is an essentially creatively destructive one. 55 Chapter 7 Cast Out of the Garden: Creative Destruction and the Eden Narrative Essentially Contested Grounds If we are going to discuss Creative Destruction's relation to a way of life such as Buddhism perhaps another relationship worth studying is Creative Destruction's relationship to the three main religious movements of the western world, namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. An example of how Creative Destruction connects with these can be found in the Eden narrative. The Eden account can be found in Genesis chapters 1– 3. Most are familiar with the account, knowing the creation story, the creation of Adam, the creation of the Garden, the injunction to not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the creation of Eve, the serpent's conversation with Eve, and Eve and Adam's partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Most are also familiar with the subsequent conversation with God that Adam and Eve have and their expulsion by God from Eden. The change in the set of circumstances from when Adam and Eve are in Eden to when they are expelled from it is a significant point to many reader and interpreter of the account. Although the account is a short one, one that is barely mentioned in the rest of the Hebrew Bible, it has become a source for hundreds of different commentaries and interpretations by the various religious movements and sects that use the Hebrew Bible as scripture. Despite the arguments over the interpretation of the text and its particular parts, of significance to our discussion is the change inherent in the expulsion from Eden. From the text, in verses 15 and 16 of chapter 2 we read that the man was put in the garden to till and keep it, and he was told to eat of 56 the fruits of all the trees save the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and later we are told that the man and woman were naked but not ashamed. 1 It is generally assumed from these brief details that life in Eden was a paradise; indeed, in reference to the very notion John Milton's epic poem about the events that we are discussing is named ― Paradise Lost.‖ Most of this assumption likely comes from the comparison that is made between the above- mentioned verses and the decrees Deity makes after the man and woman have eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ( it should be noted that there is a thousands of years old discussion as to what the nature of their disobedience was, so that no one can say with any scholastic authority what was their ― sin‖ or even if it was a sin— more on that later). As we read the events described in chapter 3 we read about the God cursing the serpent, telling the woman that God will make something happen to her ( to be honest, the translations can make this seem like a punishment or just telling her the way things will be in a frank manner), and finally telling Adam that because he has eaten of the fruit the earth will be cursed. 2 Because of these descriptions and the contrast that can be imagined from them we generally assume this garden Adam and Eve were in to be ― Edenic.‖ Because of this utopic view of Eden there are some interesting readings as to what the change was that happened because of the disobedience in Eden. Moral corruption, change of diet, sorrow, loss of dominion and glory, loss of the animals' ability to talk, pain and illness, even death— all are interpretations of the nature of what happened because of what was done in Eden. For example, the editors Kristen E. Kvam, Linda S. Schearing, and Valerie H. Ziegler, in their text Adam & Eve, writing about some of the early commentaries given about the Eden narrative explain that ― As ancient writers speculated on what the first couple did wrong, so they commented on the 1 Gen. 2: 15– 16, 25. 2 Gen. 3. 57 significance of that disobedience. While many viewed it as catastrophic for all creation, there was little agreement as to what that catastrophe entailed.‖ 3 Most of the commentaries we have available, down through the ages and across Judaic, Islamic, and Christian writers have a general consensus that whatever happened it was ― catastrophic.‖ At least that was the general interpretation until we come to the Gnostic Christians. Orthodox and Gnostic Christian Views of Eden From the earliest days of Christianity there was division on doctrine and practice. However after some time, the leaders of the Christian churches began to segregate between what was mainstream and what wasn't. The mainstream that was chosen was the orthodox ( a Latin term for ― straight thinking‖) way. According to the orthodox tradition the scriptures were meant to be read literally, making the events depicted in Genesis as actual and real. As early Christianity scholar Elaine Pagels puts it in her text about early Christianity's various views on sexuality, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, ― They read the Genesis story, in particular, as history with a moral: that is, they regarded Adam and Eve as actual historical persons, the venerable ancestors of our race; and from the story of their disobedience, orthodox interpreters drew practical lessons in moral behavior.‖ 4 These views included— as can be seen by a review of the many interpretations recounted in Eve & Adam by Kristen E. Kvam, Linda S. Schearing and Valerie H. Ziegler— predominately ones that saw the four major roles and their accompanying value- judgments depicted as follows: that God, the creator is good; that the Serpent, therefore in its temptation of the man and woman to disobey God's commandment, is evil; that Eve did wrong in the eating, and for getting Adam to partake also, of the 3 Kristen E. Kvam, Linda S. Schearing, and Valerie H. Ziegler, eds. Eve & Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Readings on Genesis and Gender ( Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999), 44. 4 Elaine H. Pagels, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, First ed. ( New York: Random House, 1988) 63. 58 fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and that Adam also did wrong in partaking of the same fruit when Eve gave it to him. From these predominate orthodox views of the Genesis text stemmed the later Christian interpretations including the notion of a ― fall‖ from the grace of God. The principle of a ― fall‖ was common, even among the Christian gnostic tradition, although to Gnostics this would sometimes be interpreted as a positive event as opposed to the orthodox Christian predominately negative view of the ― fall.‖ 5 As Pagels points out, there was no predominate, overarching interpretation of the Genesis account, but many different possibilities in interpretation; however, some important gnostic traditions which are important to our considerations turned the mainstream interpretation of the account of the fall on its head. In these interpretations, as Pagels points out, we see that to Gnostics the scriptures are meant as ― myth with meaning,‖ 6 making it possible to reinterpret this ― fall‖ account as something good and positive. In some of these accounts, for example, the Serpent can be taken as a symbol of the Instructor— something wholly good to the gnostic ( the gnostic tradition being most interested in knowledge and enlightenment). 7 In this interpretation the roles of the other major players in the narrative are therefore flipped. Adam and Eve, choosing to partake of the fruit— seeking, taking, and accepting knowledge— are therefore doing good. 8 Although the early church leaders eventually suppressed this gnostic tradition, it would nonetheless appear and reappear in literature in the western world again and again. 9 5 Ibid., 57– 77. 6 Ibid., 64. 7 Ibid., 59– 60, 67. 8 Ibid., 66– 67. 9 Ibid,. 57– 61, 76– 77. 59 Regardless of the interpretation of whether the inside or the outside of Eden is better, a point essential to our discussion is the idea that what Adam and Eve chose to do was essentially creatively destructive. In order to understand this better we should bring up an important aspect of Creative Destruction. Up to this point we have been discussing Creative Destruction as generally a positive force, one that makes health better by replacing blood- letting with physical therapy, drugs, and surgery. However, as Wheelan discussed when he pointed out that it wasn't very pleasant trying to be a telegrapher after the telephone was invented, Creative Destruction can be a crushing and painful process. Additionally, Creative Destruction may not always bring about changes that are positive ones, that is to say, some of the new, cheaper, faster processes may actually be more problematic, pollutant, and in many other ways far less desirable than we would like. Take for example what are commonly referred to as ― factory farms‖ ( often the technical term of ― Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations,‖ or COFA is applied euphemistically to these farms as well). The term is applied to farms that are meant to produce the most in the cheapest, most efficient way possible. These COFA pack as many animals as possible into the smallest amount of space and use whatever means available to get the food that can be extracted from these animals to consumers as quickly as possible. The vast majority of the food people in the U. S. get comes from the factory farm system. 10 When using this system people in countries like the U. S. get far cheaper meat, dairy, eggs, and even produce. However, there are many costs to this system that many people who use it ignore. In the places where these farms are common, the air pollution is worse than in some of the most populous and polluted cities in the U. S. 11 In various cities and countryside where 10 Peter Singer and Jim Mason, The Ethics of What We Eat ( n. p.: Rodale, 2006), 21– 22, 45, 60– 61. 11 Ibid., 60; Miguel Bustillo, ― In San Joaquin Valley, Cows Pass Cars as Polluters,‖ Los Angeles Times, August 2, 2005. 60 these COFA exist, the water supply is bad off, the air is so foul- smelling people are stopped in their steps, and the fly population is so dense people have a hard time seeing clearly. 12 Sadly, the work on these factory farms is pretty poor, as well. For some chicken operations the employee turnover is more than 100% per year. The companies that run the factory farms pay poorly for dangerous jobs, and regularly seek to pay less and remove employee benefits. 13 Another point to consider is that one of the worst health scares in recent years, over the avian flu ( H5N1 virus), had a major connection to places like the chicken and egg COFA. In October 2005 the UN and several other agencies identified these places as being a serious hazard for spreading the H5N1 virus. 14 One more point worth considering is the cost to benefit ratio of the use of land for raising animals in cramped, overused parcels of land, as we have in factory farms. In their text The Ethics of What We Eat, Peter Singer and Jim Mason, animal rights scholars, point out that for every pound of beef it takes 13 pounds of grain— an unnatural food for cattle— to make it, and the numbers for how much humanly edible food used to produce pork and poultry aren't any better. 15 These COFA also use more than 70 percent of the world's developed freshwater supplies, costing at the least 441 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef in the most conservative estimates. 16 12 Ibid., 29– 32. 13 Ibid., 32– 34; Mark Kawar, ― Tyson, Freddie Mac Help Workers to Buy Homes,‖ Omaha World- Herald, February 14, 2004. 14 Ibid., 34– 35; UN News Centre, ― UN Task Forces Battle Misconceptions of Avian Flu, Mount Indonesian Campaign,‖ October 24, 2005, http:// www. un. org/ apps/ news/ story. asp? NewsID= 16342& Cr= bird& Cr1= flu ( accessed August 9, 2012). 15 Ibid., 61, 232; W. O. Herring and J. K. Bertrand, ― Multi- Trait Prediction of Feed Conversion in Feedlot Cattle,‖ Proceedings from the 34th Annual Beef Improvement Federation Annual Meeting, Omaha, Ne, July 10– 13, 2002, http:// www. bifconference. com/ bif2002/ BIFsymposium_ pdfs/ Herring_ 02BIF. pdf ( accessed August 9, 2012). 16 Ibid. 234– 235; J. L. Beckett and J. W. Oltjen, ― Estimation of the Water Requirement for Beef Production in the United States,‖ Journal of Animal Science, 71 ( 1993), 579– 594. 61 The benefits to COFA are strong as well, though. All of this is done so that some of the cheapest products on our store shelves can be meat, dairy, and eggs. Because of this process thousands of jobs are created for people who can't afford training in other fields, or prefer the life of the day- laborer for one reason or another. We have more land that can be used for housing, resorts, parks, or other industries, instead of small, family farms because of this process. Additionally because of these COFA, we have people whose livelihoods are significantly increased as they own and operate such businesses. All around we have examples of how factory farms are creatively destructive, but when compared and contrasted, it seems that the costs outweigh the benefits. Schumpeter comments importantly on the fact that the market system does not necessarily bring about the effect that any of us wish. Just as with the case we have considered here of the COFA, Schumpeter points out that what we gain from the market system may be economic growth and performance, and little or nothing else. He writes, ― As regards the economic performance, it does not follow that men are ― happier‖ or even ― better off‖ in the industrial society today than they were in a medieval manor or village.‖ In addition he points out that that is not the concern when speaking in terms of economics: ― whether favorable or unfavorable, value judgments about capitalist performance are of little interest.‖ 17 Although it is often important on an individual basis to make such value judgments, what is of note that Schumpeter has pointed out is that these things happen and will go on with or without the labels of ― good‖ or ― bad.‖ What we have in the COFA situation, much as the ― sin and punishment‖ interpretation of the Eden narrative are examples of how Creative Destruction is not something we can always give a positive value judgment to. What we must understand is that although Creative Destruction can be a positive experience for most human beings involved, or that it may be interpreted as such ( by all or a 17 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 129. 62 small group), like the Gnostics interpreted the Eden narrative, the important thing to remember is simply that it happens, whether we like it or not. Creative Destruction is a force that has no master, no heart, and no mind. We may have a direct hand in bringing a creatively destructive event or set of events about, but we have no say in how it will end, how it will affect us or others, or even how our tipping of the first domino in the process may be judged in the future. 63 Part III Creative Destruction as a Lens 65 Chapter 8 Creative Destruction on the Brain After so much discussion on Creative Destruction where I have found parallels in other areas, you may also be comparing it with things and areas you are familiar with. You may see Creative Destruction in an activity that you never considered significant before. You may make a comparison of Creative Destruction to one of the most important philosophical questions that you consider on a daily, if not hourly basis. To my mind, this comparing process is one of the most natural and fruitful there are. After so much study of the principle, Creative Destruction has gained a massive mental gravity for me; such that whenever I read or hear about something new, I have a tendency to find similarities in the new thing to Creative Destruction. I see it in the practice of my own religion and philosophies; I see it in gardening, friendships, and any number of other things. I seem to have Creative Destruction on the brain, and as part of my studies have included the study of the area of English, and therefore have spent so much effort in recent times considering literature as part of my studies, Creative Destruction has also become something of a vantage point wherefrom I have considered many poems, novels, short stories, plays, films, and other works of fiction. I think as I read, listen to, or watch something whether there is an active, creatively destructive process going on, if any character or any element of the text is being protectionistic, and why that element of protectionism exists in the specific case. Is, for example, one of the characters trying to prevent a change— any kind of change— from happening in the story? Is the very text itself trying to prevent a change from occurring? On the other hand, the question may come as to what is the agent of change in the narrative? How easy is it to define the web that has created the intersection( s) we are now examining as the audience? Additionally, I see as I read, watch and listen to things lessons 66 from texts and performances that help me to deepen my understanding of Creative Destruction and its related principles. All of these questions are important when we consider the implications of Creative Destruction as it relates to pieces of literature and the like, and as should be obvious, this is the intent I have, that is, I wish to use the aspects we have discovered in our examination of Creative Destruction to examine three distinct works: Yevgeny Zamyatin's text, We; William Shakespeare's Macbeth; and Director Gary Ross' film, Pleasantville. Literary Criticism Although we have been considering Creative Destruction and its parallels in various areas, it is still important to consider whether it is plausible to use Creative Destruction as a lens for examining texts, and works of art in general. Perhaps the first thing to consider is how we examine texts and such things, or, what literary criticism is. In Charles E. Bressler's Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, he explains some of the basic features of literary theory, and how they are unavoidable to the very act of reading and thinking about what we have read. Because anyone who responds to a text is already a practicing literary critic and because practical criticism is rooted in the reader's preconditioned expectations ( his or her mind- set) when actually reading a text, every reader espouses some kind of literary theory. Each reader's theory may be conscious or unconscious, whole or partial, informed or ill informed, eclectic or unified. 1 So in other words, whenever we actively think about questions such as what the meaning behind the text is, or what the significance of an event or even the style a text is written in, we begin to practice literary criticism. The difference between the beginnings of literary criticism that we automatically do 1 Charles E. Bressler, Literary Criticism: An Introduction to Theory and Practice, Fifth ed. ( Boston: Longman, 2011), 8. 67 and the practice undertaken by more professional literary critics comes when we begin to articulate our criticisms. However, it is not just an articulation or the creation of a framework that makes up a particular literary theory, it is better to describe it in similar ways to Bressler, that is to say, when we practice literary criticism in earnest, what we do is realize that we, as viewers and readers have a point of view, and that point of view has many pieces to it. Bressler points out that the origin of the word ― criticism‖ has reference to the seat one occupied in the ancient Greek theatre. When considering the point of view we gain from our particular seat, if we are to understand it properly includes understanding our distance from the scene depicted, the elevation at which the stage and our seats are at, and what our angle from the sides or center of the stage might be. 2 To explain the metaphor, what a literary critic really does is examine these sorts of metaphoric aspects as concerns their reading of a given text or piece of art. A good literary critic examines what the author's perspective might have done to shape the text, what the moment in history in which the piece was created might have done to form it, what the literary critic's own understanding of words, terms, and so forth might do to inform the interpretation that she has, and what the very culture from which she comes has done to inform her interpretation. All of these aspects and many more are important pieces that a good literary critic will examine in the review of a piece. One of the best examples of literary criticism has come from the very source that Schumpeter drew some of his ideas from: the writings of Karl Marx. Marxist criticism concerns questions as to whether the literature reinforces capitalist sensibilities and dogma. Does a text make everyday, necessary labor seem like the stuff of lessers, while exalting the owners and highlighting property rights, even at the expense of human rights? Do the privileged few only pay attention to the many 2 Ibid., 8– 9. 68 destitute when their fortunate way of life is threatened? Does the very language or structure used in a text seem to reaffirm these sorts of principles? These are the sorts of questions a Marxist critic will consider when examining a text or piece of art. It is clear that there are many similarities between the kinds of things that Creative Destruction causes us to ask of the works we view and the kinds of questions Marx' works cause us to ask, but an important considerations is whether there are any limitations of Creative Destruction that could prevent it from being used as such. The natural reaction may be to think that as Creative Destruction is an economic principle it cannot be applied to other things; however, as we have seen from the content of part II, that is an irrational argument. Nonetheless, the problem may be the depth to which Creative Destruction can reach as a point of view for examining literature. For example, when we again look at Marxist criticism, its strength comes from the depth to which it often causes its students to reexamine the way he looks at the world around him. One of the principles that does just that comes from the work of the mid- twentieth century Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci was the first to articulate the Marxist concept of ― hegemony.‖ Hegemony is seen as the influence a particular group has, but Gramsci discusses in his Prison Notebooks that a group that has power politically has a kind of hegemony that it uses to control the actions of its people. This is distinct from ― state domination‖ in that it is not the direct, physical enforcement that a group in power might take, such as sending someone to prison, or beating back revolutionaries. Hegemony, according to Gramsci, is the influence that a particular culture has on its people which is indirect but still works to control. 3 As an example, let's say there is an American boy named Greg. Greg is as American as they come. One day, some bullies force Greg to wear a dress 3 Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, trans. and ed. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith ( New York: International Publishers, 2010), 12– 13. 69 that is clearly that of a stereotypically American girl. The bullies then push Greg out into an area where all of his peers are. If you are as familiar with American culture as I am, you are probably already blushing for Greg. But why? What makes such a difference between a pair of pants and a skirt? If both articles of clothing protect Greg so that he is neither too cold nor too warm, and from any usual kind of physical discomfort that Greg might commonly expect, what is so bad about it? Your answer to this question is likely the same as mine: there is no difference between the two. But Greg, as many real American boys would be, is horrifically embarrassed. He would likely have a very difficult time forgetting this event, and would have an equally difficult time remembering the event without feeling much or more of the emotions he felt at the time. The fact that his society has conditioned Greg to feel embarrassed for such a thing happening ( regardless of whether it was his fault), and has conditioned his bullies to think of it as something embarrassing that they could do to Greg. This is an example of hegemony. Hegemony is the way in which the government and its culture control the people without having to even touch them. There is no police force that will prevent Greg from wearing a skirt; in fact, most individuals around Greg would not think twice about making such clothing easily available to Greg, even putting it right in front of him, because ― everyone‖ knows that Greg is an American boy, and American boys don't wear dresses. Although this is a slightly more gender related case of hegemony, it is nonetheless linked to the kind of hegemony that Gramsci discusses. The Marxist idea of hegemony focuses on the kinds of things that capitalist society does to us that are like the case of Greg and the dress. Capitalist hegemony would include thinking it ridiculous if no one in particular— not even a corporation— actually owns the local factory or park, if instead they belonged to everyone. Or that it would be ridiculous to not want to own or manage your own business, but to work as a regular day- laborer. Or that the purpose of work was to make your family financially comfortable and therefore 70 unavoidably ― happy‖— even if it meant you became miserable in the process of making your family ― happy.‖ Learning this principle and others like it from Marxist literature causes one to think how a text or a play might be doing the same thing to one's own mind. Is a certain character being blocked from doing something they want, or being with the one they love because they don't come from the right economic background? Does a certain play or text make me ― happy‖ because it simply is reinforcing the image I've been fed of the kind of life I should have economically? After discovering the works of Marx, Marxist critics write about what they do because of a pervasive nature of the works of Marx that makes it difficult to see the world without the influence of him. As we saw from Bressler, this is the feature that makes literary criticism almost automatic and natural for many readers and viewers of texts, performances, and other art forms. This infectious depth is the kind of depth that we should be able to see when considering things through the lens of Creative Destruction, and as we have seen from the things we have covered in Part II, it is a feature of Creative Destruction that makes it so similar to the ideas of the man who inspired Schumpeter to describe Creative Destruction in the first place. 71 Chapter 9 Creative Destruction and Us If we were to look at Creative Destruction as somehow being only a capitalistic principle— which I'm sure your newfound familiarity will make you reject such a notion— then Yevgeny Zamyatin's writings, particularly We, would seem much at odds. After all, the author was a consummate communist/ socialist revolutionary; a man who, in his youth, was arrested and exiled out of Russia for Bolshevik student activism, who then snuck back in, and was caught again and subsequently internally exiled to Siberia until his trial finally came ( only given an actual date because of the uncomfortable satires Zamyatin was writing while in Siberia) and he was sent to England until the actual Bolshevik revolutions of 1917.1 However, it is his push for continual revolution that makes Zamyatin's works such interesting things to examine in light of Creative Destruction. From a shallow, western perspective, we might assume that once the 1917 revolutions happened Zamyatin would have finally been happy and content. However, when we continue the narrative of Zamyatin's life, we see a better picture. Life for Zamyatin— or for most Russians for that matter— did not improve much after the 1917 revolutions: starvation and a general atmosphere of oppression made him dissatisfied with post- revolution Russia; so, he began writing new satire and horror stories about the issues of day- to- day life there. Lack of food, heat, and comfort for the everyman was not something that Zamyatin wished to settle for, nor would he rest when an oppression that was almost identical to the prerevolutionary Tsarist kind existed. Zamyatin wrote prolifically about these conditions in his own way, and these notions and sentiments of dissatisfaction for lack of an actual 1 Bruce Sterling, foreword to the Modern Library paperback edition of We, by Yevgeny Zamyatin, Modern Library paperback ed. ( New York: The Modern Library, 2006), vii. 72 improvement after the revolutions, according to writer Bruce Sterling, is why Zamyatin put pen to paper and wrote We. 2 Because of the metaphorical nature of Zamyatin's writing and the circumstances surrounding the creation of We, much has been, and will be written about it because of its meta- critical nature, but it is the satire on revolution that makes Creative Destruction an appropriate lens to help us discover more about We, and it is also this nature that makes We an excellent tool to use to discover more about Creative Destruction as well. A good place to begin, therefore, is discussing the nature of the story of We. We is generally considered the first true ― dystopia,‖ that is, a story set in a place that is paradisiacal for some, but not for all. We is set in the distant future, in a place where the ― One State‖ rules everyone, where social norms have changed completely, and where the principles of freedom and reason are considered to be opposites. This dystopian setting is one which is important to any sincere consideration of We. J. Max Patrick, in his essay ― Iconoclasm, the Complement of Utopianism,‖ points out that the purpose of such dystopian settings in literature is that of iconoclasm: to point out the differences between the worlds portrayed in the texts and the world that the author and the reader are familiar with, and is therefore an attempt on the author's part to inspire change.‖ 3 Knowing Zamyatin's propensity for satire makes this function of dystopia an especially important thing to note. The text is narrated by D- 503, a citizen ( or ― cipher‖ in his own words) of the ― One State.‖ D- 503 is enamored of the One State and the situation in which he and the other characters live. Throughout the text, D- 503, explains how the world which he is describing is one that is all happiness and no freedom because freedom causes unhappiness, and ― reason,‖ being the opposite of freedom, according to the One State, is directly linked to happiness. So, because ― reason‖ is 2 Ibid., vii– viii. 3 J. Max Patrick, ― Iconoclasm, the Complement of Utopianism,‖ Science Fiction Studies 3, no. 2 ( July 1976): 158– 159. 73 above all in the One State, happiness is all there is left, according to D- 503. This happiness and reason are the result of the Two Hundred Years War. Since that war, everything that exists in the world of D- 503 is designed with the accompanying ― logic‖ that the One State realizes. D- 503 goes to great length to explain this in several instances. For example, D- 503 points out how ― funny‖ it is that the society before the Two Hundred Years War did not cause people to exercise properly or eat properly, or sleep for appropriately healthful amounts of time. How could they not force people to live by the ― Table,‖ which is a precision schedule for everyone and everything. He writes, … the most unlikely thing, it seems to me, is this: how could the olden day governmental power… have allowed [ people] to live without anything like our Table, without scheduled walks, without precise regulation of mealtimes, getting up and going to bed whenever it occurred to them? He goes on: This I just cannot comprehend in any way. Their faculties of reason may not have been developed, but they must have understood more broadly that living like that amounted to mass murder— literally— only it was committed slowly, day after day. The State ( humaneness) forbade killing to death any one person but didn't forbid the half- killing of millions. He concludes this consideration of the absurdity of our times with the observation ― Isn't that funny?‖ 4 This adoration of the One State that D- 503 has is quite absolute until he meets I- 330, of course. I- 330 is the revolutionary of We, in stark contrast to D- 503' s devotion to the One State, I- 330 is complementarily dismissive of the One State in which they both live. She is heavily involved in the revolutionary movement that seeks to use the project that D- 503 is working on ( a spaceship to conquer other worlds and occupy them with the culture of the One State) to break the influence of the One State. When D- 503 meets I- 330 he is frustrated with her criticality of the One State, but he is also almost instantly infatuated with her, going on to spend more and more time with her. As he 4 Yevgeny Zamyatin, We, Modern Library paperback ed. ( New York: The Modern Library, 2006), 13. 74 spends more time with her and has a harder and harder time not accepting her point of view, or her requests of him, D- 503 becomes more and more conflicted inside. Despite D- 503' s devotion to the One State through the entire text, his association with I- 330 causes him to question himself and that devotion more and more. This doubt happens for D- 503 subconsciously, and unconsciously. What I mean by subconsciously is that it is something that could be reached were he to try to examine it, something that D- 503 could understand himself, on his own, were he to give the time and effort to it. That which I refer to here as ― unconscious‖ is that element, or those things about oneself that can never be reached by oneself, that can only be seen by an outside observer, or perhaps not observed by anyone at all. We see the subconscious doubt that D- 503 many times, for example, when in record eleven D- 503 is looking at himself in the mirror and contemplating the events of the day before when he spent time with I- 330 who was drinking and sharing some green alcohol with him as they were in the midst of foreplay. He notes something that is him but isn't him, ―… I am looking at myself, at him. And I firmly know: this person with eyebrows that look like they've been struck through with a straight line, he is an outsider and alien to me, and I am meeting him for the first time in my life. But I am real. I— not he…‖, but D- 503 is unwilling and therefore unable to see what is inside him. He goes on: ― No: period. All this is junk, and all these ridiculous sensations are delirium— the result of yesterday's contamination… by the mouthful of green poison— or was it by her? It doesn't matter.‖ 5 However, there is more there than doubt in the One State, there is something else there— a fear— but what kind of fear is it? We see the same fear on a more unconscious level later in the text as D- 503 is walking along the green, translucent wall that separates the cityscape of the One State from 5 Ibid., 53– 54. 75 the wilderness outside. D- 503 comes across a beast on the opposite side of the wall, close enough that D- 503 can see it clearly. He writes of it: Through the glass— foggy and dim— I saw the stupid muzzle of some kind of beast, his yellow eyes, obstinately repeating one and the same incomprehensible thought at me. We looked at each other for a long time, eye to eye, through the mineshafts from the surface world to that other world, beyond the surface. But a thought swarmed in me: what if he, this yellow- eyed being— in his ridiculous, dirty bundle of trees, in his uncalculated life— is happier than us? 6 D- 503 immediately dismisses this thought, chalking it up to his decision that all his doubt and fear comes from the fact that he is ill, contaminated and sick from his encounters with I- 330 and her revolutionary ways. When we step back to examine D- 503' s thoughts and reaction to this encounter we might well also ask here, what is it that causes so much fear and doubt in D- 503? Certainly, as we have discussed previously, there are elements of the psychological unconscious and subconscious in this, as well as the illusion of hegemony: D- 503 cannot come to grips with what is occurring with and around him because of his psychological unpreparedness and because the culture in which he is so wrapped up blinds him from any possible explanation. However, Creative Destruction and its associated elements give another facet or layer of understanding about this situation. We know from our examinations up to this point that the instinct that can block us as individuals from accepting the changes that occur in the world around us come from that protectionist instinct that demands that we be safe and comfortable no matter what. Remember that Schumpeter pointed out that when our interests are threatened, we can and will fight progress itself. 7 It is this notion that D- 503 interprets as the beast's message through its yellow eyes, this message of an ― uncalculated‖ future. Additionally, it is this changed version of himself, which he cannot accept, a version of 6 Ibid., 83. 7 Schumpeter, Capitalism, 96. 76 himself that he simultaneously hates and cannot live without that he sees in the mirror: the version of himself that is not protectionistic. Our considerations up to this point bring up another question: if D- 503 finds so much pleasure in the One State, and— as far as he knows— it provides him with more happiness than the confusion that comes from his association with I- 330 and the post- revolutionary state she hopes for, does D- 503' s resistance to change really amount to protectionism? If we recall what Schumpeter writes about the timing of adoption, we gain a better understanding of how D- 503' s resistance can be considered reasonable instead of simply as protectionistic. Schumpeter writes: A new type of machine is in general but a link in a chain of improvements and may presently become obsolete. In a case like this it would obviously not be rational to follow the chain link by link regardless of the capital loss to be suffered each time. The real question then is at which link the concern should take action. 8 In consideration of this idea— that is, that we may not wish to waste effort on adopting a change that would be unfruitful or even useless to adopt— we begin to see that although we as readers may consider the option of adopting I- 330' s ideals as the best one, it may not seem so for D- 503 because he has no reason to doubt sufficiently that the current regime may continue in its strength and crush I- 330 and her compatriots ( which it does) or that I- 330' s plans are not the process that will actually take hold for the longest period of time. In fact, although D- 503 eventually goes along with I- 330' s plans, it is this latter course that unfolds in the text eventually. Neither the world which D- 503 is familiar with at the beginning, nor the one which I- 330 wishes to incite are the one that comes to fruition. The revolution that comes next for the world these two inhabit is twofold. The first comes through the creation of ― the 8 Ibid., 98. 77 operation,‖ and the second comes through the choices of another character in the text, D- 503' s regular sexual partner, O- 90. ― The operation‖ is to remove the ― imagination‖ of the recipient. D- 503 first mentions it when his assistant discusses it with him, ― Have you heard? It seems some kind of operation has been invented— the excision of the imagination.‖ 9 Later we are given a full account of what it is and what the One State advertises it to be. There is a decree placed on the front page of the State Gazette which describes all of this. In the publication the One State points out that they have a perfect society, and that every member thereof is like a machine and a cog in a larger machine, except for the flaw of the imagination. Therefore, to make the little machines that the ciphers are into perfect ones, the state offers the imagination excision operation to cure them of their ― illness‖ that is their imaginations. 10 To begin with it is a procedure that is elective for any and all who wish for it, but by the end, because of the disruption that I- 330 and her cohorts cause with their attempts at rebellion and revolution, the One State makes the operation mandatory. Lobotomized, but ― one hundred percent happy,‖ the recipients of the operation become the cogs in the machine of the One State that it wants them to be. In the end of the story D- 503 receives the operation. This operation and its accompanying changes are what make it possible for D- 503 to give up his beloved I- 330 and her co- revolutionaries to the authorities. The operation and its effects allow D- 503 to permit these former associates of his to be put into the gas bell jar to be tortured to death, and the operation allows D- 503 to witness all of this, and |
| Publication Type | Thesis |
| Degree | Bachelor of Science |
| Department | Integrated Studies |
| School/College | College of Humanities and Social Sciences |
| Degree Granting Institution | Utah Valley University |
| conversion/Specifications | NA |
| Refresh | 2016/01/18 |
| File Size | 458 KB |
| Color Space | na |
| Height | na |
| Width | na |
| Media Type | pdf |
| User Name | uvu |
|
