Themes

Are truths inherently good and lies inherently bad? This is the question that Vonnegut explores through Cats Cradle. This seemingly obvious question goes beyond the usefulness of mere “white lies”. Instead, Vonnegut begs us to consider the grand purpose of truth and lies as it pertains to the meaning of life in general. Such an argument inevitably forces us to consider the roles of religion and science in our society.

"New knowledge is the most valuable commodity on earth. The more truth we have to work with, the richer we become.” (p.41)

A seemingly valid statement, right? As generic as it is, I think it’s a viewpoint that many of us would be ok with agreeing with. However, the narrator, John, responds:

Had I been a Bokononist then, that statement would have made me howl. (p.41)

This is because Bokononism is a religion that is quite literally founded upon lies. The first sentence in The Books of Bokonon is this: “All of the true things I am about to tell you are shameless lies.” But this is the case with most religions today. That’s not to say that religions outright claim lying as their main tenet, but most religions, like Bokononism, are founded upon unfounded beliefs about life and how the world began. While Bokononism does admit to lying, its core messages can be compared to those of any other religions. Its emphasis on lying serves to draw the reader’s attention to the contrast between the related, but separate, institutions of religion and science. Both seek to explain the universe, but Vonnegut’s argument is that religion does so for the benefit of humans, while science does so purely for “truth”.

Put that way, I suppose Vonnegut’s argument makes a lot of sense. What exactly is the good of truth? On a smaller scale, truth leads to scientific discoveries and technological developments that improve our quality of life, but these things are materialistic. I think this is a case of “you can’t miss what you’ve had”. If a religion told us what was possible and what we wanted to hear and allowed us to believe what we wanted to believe, we would live much happier lives. Without pursuing truth and understanding any scientific truths of our universe, we would continue on living our blissfully ignorant lives. Humanity may never actually get anywhere or accomplish anything, but nevertheless, in our own heads, our lives would be more fulfilling and meaningful. This is evident in the extreme situation on the Island of San Lorenzo:

Well, when it became evident that no governmental or economic reform was going to make the people much less miserable, the religion became the one real instrument of hope. Truth was the enemy of the people, because the truth was so terrible, so Bokonon made it his business to provide the people with better and better lies. (p.172)

Of course, truth has important applications in our real world, namely ensuring a stable society with a functional government. A society with nothing but religious zeal would quickly disintegrate into anarchy, as was the case in San Lorenzo. Although a society based on lies is idealistic, it’s an interesting concept to consider.

In our society, truth is always regarded as the ultimate goal, knowledge with utmost importance, scientists with utmost respect. However, throughout the novel, Vonnegut trivializes the role of truth. In the following passage, Vonnegut describes the “scientific” meaning of life:

“‘He said science was going to discover the basic secret of life someday,’ the Bartender put in. He scratched his head and frowned. ‘Didn’t I read in the paper the other day where they’d finally found out what it was?’‘I missed that,’ I murmured.
‘I saw that,’ said Sandra.  ‘About two days ago.’‘That’s right,’ said the bartender.‘What is the secret of life?’ I asked.
‘I forget,’ said Sandra.‘Protein,’  the bartender declared. ‘They found out something about protein.’
‘Yeah,’ said Sandra, ‘that’s it.’” (p.25)

This is a very good answer from a scientific point of view. We can say that life is defined by the ability to reproduce and perform all of the functions needed to adapt to the environment and survive. All living organisms, including one-celled bacteria share a common characteristic – DNA (or RNA for extremely primitive organisms). When most people think of DNA, they think of a genetic code that contains the “essence” of what the organism is, it’s identity, the key that makes the organism somehow “magically” alive. However, upon further examination, genetic code is simply an extremely long physical template along which molecules called amino acids match up in a particular order (defined by the genes). These amino acids are then linked together to form proteins. That’s essentially the only function that DNA has – to provide a blueprint for making all of the proteins that a particular organism needs in order to build its body and stay alive. Different organisms need different proteins, and therefore have different DNA. From a scientific standpoint, proteins are quite literally the “secret of life”. But of course it’s not. It’s the secret to our physical existence, but not to our consciousness, understanding, or experiences.

“I think you’ll find,” said Dr. Breed, “that every-body does about the same amount of thinking. Scientists simply think about things in one way, and other people think about things in others.” (p.33)

Dr. Asa Breed, Felix Hoenikker’s supervisor, represents everything that Vonnegut criticizes about scientists. They approach everything in the world from an objective, inhuman point of view. They tend to explain everything with science, with “truth”, but of course truth has no greater meaning other than it is correct, and it is what it is. Here is an exchange between Miss Faust (Dr. Breed’s secretary) and John:

“Dr. Breed keeps telling me the main thing with Dr. Hoenikker was truth.” 

“You don’t seem to agree.” 

“I don’t know whether I agree or not. I just have trouble understanding how truth, all by itself, could be enough for a person.” 

Miss Faust was ripe for Bokononism. (p.54)

Also, consider the following passage:

“Magic,” declared Miss Pefko. 

“I’m sorry to hear a member of the Laboratory family using that brackish, medieval word,” said Dr. Breed. “Every one of those exhibits explains itself. They’re designed so as not to be mystifying. They’re the very antithesis of magic.” 

“The very what of magic?” 

“The exact opposite of magic.” 

“You couldn’t prove it by me.” (p.36)

I think what Miss Pefko is actually saying is that she doesn’t want the exhibits to be proven to be un-magical. “Magical” by definition, really just refers to something that cannot be explained scientifically (and therefore cannot truly exist). Well then, by that definition, I suppose things we don’t understand can appear magical to us, even if it’s not the “truth”. If I were to bring a light bulb (better yet, a colored light bulb) back in time to prehistoric times, the cavemen would probably think it was pretty magical and revere me as a God. Of course, I think that being the caveman would also be quite something. I imagine the level of fascination the caveman would have probably doesn’t exist anymore in our scientific world today. We’ve come to expect that everything can be achieved by science eventually. Scientific explanations may satisfy curiosity, but they definitely dull the “magic” behind many things. As Bokonon preaches, knowing the truth serves no real purpose other than knowing the truth. As a kid, when Santa Clause and magic is real, life is much more interesting. However, when one becomes an adult, life becomes filled with wisdom and disappointment:

“Maturity,” Bokonon tells us, “is a bitter disappointment for which no remedy exists, unless laughter can be said to remedy anything.” (p.198)

The book’s title is explained in the following passage and is connected with the prevailing theme of truth:

Newt remained curled in the chair. He held out his painty hands as though a cat’s cradle were strung between them. “No wonder kids grow up crazy. A cat’s cradle is nothing but a bunch of X’s between somebody’s hands, and little kids look and look and look at all those X’s …”“And?”“No damn cat, and no damn cradle.” (p.166)