"That's how it is," said the Con-edian. | Kurt Vonnegut and the Theory of Resistance through Connections

Good evening.
As 2025 is coming to an end, I find myself feeling a bit lonely these days, thinking about how quickly this year has passed.

Well, tonight I would like to present a theory of America (and a theory of life) deciphered from a certain work by Kurt Vonnegut, whom I personally consider to be, without exaggeration, one of the representative writers of America even today.

As readers who know me on X are likely aware, I go by the title of "Researcher of the Grassroots Community Research Society (with one member)," and I have wanted to write about Vonnegut as part of that endeavor. (The aforementioned research society exists only in my head and is not real. Also, I feel like there is a contradiction between being 'grassroots' and a 'society,' but let's not worry about the details!)

In this critique, while I cannot say I am dealing with community directly enough to call it a theory of community, I believe that topics like the "extended family" are unavoidable when discussing Vonnegut.

Furthermore, I will provide links to the following articles as a theory of America, so please take a look if you are interested.

With that said, let's get started!

Seeing the subtitle of this essay, "Connections," at a glance, I wonder if most people were suspicious.

Connections, or "kone" in Japanese, is an abbreviation for "connection."

Whether it means relationships, nepotism, or personal networks, there are many meanings embedded in it, but at least for most Japanese people, it seems to have taken root as a word that does not carry a very good impression.

When we hear about nepotistic hiring, we think, "That's unfair!" or when we see someone who succeeded thanks to connections, we feel envious or jealous, thinking, "They have no real ability!" It seems we tend to be harsh toward those who appear to shine not through their own power, but through the power or authority of others.

Conversely, we hold an indescribable fondness for those who have succeeded through their own ability and effort, starting from scratch without any connections.

Even with politicians, we find those who worked their way up to be cooler and more competent than second-generation ones, and it is certainly true that companies that properly select management based on individual ability appear cleaner than those that adopt hereditary systems by blood relatives, regardless of the truth.

Perhaps, if I were to summarize the reason for feeling this way in one word, it would be the sense of unfairness.

I am better at my job than my senior A, yet he is given preferential treatment just because his parents are important.

Or, my colleague B is a sloppy person who makes others do what he should be doing, and I am a serious person who has to clean up after him, yet for some reason, he is liked by the boss and is about to get promoted ahead of me.

Ultimately, the very structure where those who have advantageous relationships from the start or are strangely good at building new ones are more likely to become winners in society than those who rely on ability or effort seems like "Other-Power Centeredness" (In this text, I will call the idea of carving out one's path mainly through one's own power "Self-Power Centeredness," and the idea of carving out one's path mainly by utilizing the power or relationships of others "Other-Power Centeredness." However, this has nothing to do with the "Tariki Hongan" or "salvation through the power of another" in Buddhism.), which is a factor that causes people to feel such a sense of unfairness.

Then why does Other-Power Centeredness make people feel a sense of unfairness?

In my opinion, there are two major reasons.

The first is that when relationships originate from things like blood ties or social status, they stand as walls that cannot be overcome no matter how much effort one makes or how much ability one demonstrates.

In other words, not only do people start from vastly different starting lines from the moment they are born, but that difference is not even a difference that can be filled later; it includes a qualitative difference.

In the era of feudalism, it was natural that if you were born into a noble family, you were a noble until you died, and if you were born into a farmer's family, you were a farmer until you died. (Since people born in that era took it for granted, they probably rarely felt a sense of unfairness.)

Although the modern era is much better overall compared to those days, the tendency that, for example, if you are born into a wealthy family, you are likely to be wealthy in the future, and if you are born into a poor family, you are likely to fall into poverty in the future, still exists.

And the difficult part of the modern era might be that the interpretation of whether that is a difference in degree or a qualitative difference changes depending on the viewer or their position.

In other words, if we continue to look at the problem of wealth and poverty as an example, did the poor person become poor because they didn't try hard enough (they are responsible for themselves), or is it a problem with the structure of society (society is responsible)?

The conflict between the two is something that has been repeated over and over again.

By the way, in parallel with the second reason why Other-Power Centeredness, and by extension connections, cause a sense of unfairness, I would like to deepen my consideration here while examining the work of a certain writer who represents America.

That writer is Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007), whom I mentioned in the opening quote.

The work I will take up is "Slaughterhouse-Five," which is also called a semi-autobiographical novel based on his war experiences. (To be precise, note that in 1969, when the original book was published, the author's name was clearly stated as "Kurt Vonnegut Jr." In this text, I have unified it to "Kurt Vonnegut" except for citations.)

I should state in advance that it is not necessarily easy to briefly introduce the plot of this book.

This is because the protagonist of this book, Billy Pilgrim, is a "spastic time traveler" who moves back and forth between the future and the past related to his life at random.

In short, because the story does not progress chronologically and goes here and there, it is extremely difficult to pick up the plot.

Nevertheless, it is strange that it is by no means difficult to read, as the translator says, but in any case, I suspect that Vonnegut was thinking deeply about his home country, America, and the problem of connections in this book.

What does that mean?

Before answering that question, for readers who have not read this book, I will briefly introduce the content of the book, even if it is not a concise summary.

"Slaughterhouse-Five" begins with the author, Vonnegut, reminiscing that he had been trying to write a book about the Dresden firebombing (the indiscriminate bombing of the German city of Dresden by the US military) that he experienced at the end of World War II.

It is impressive that Vonnegut himself states at the beginning that, as it is described as "semi-autobiographical," parts of this novel (mainly the war experience parts) are things that happened more or less as described. (We don't know the truth about how much is fiction and how much is fact.)

From then on, not the author himself, but the protagonist Billy, a fictional character as is typical for a novel, "becomes unstuck in time" during the war, and as mentioned earlier, he continues to perform specific scenes (dramas) in fragments while moving back and forth between the future and the past related to his life, including the moment of his own death.

For example, from his military service during the war and his miserable life in a prisoner-of-war camp, to his glamorous and happy married life after the war, and even, which is bizarre, the experience of being kidnapped by aliens called Tralfamadorians and put on display in a zoo, every event Billy experiences in his life appears before the reader one after another, regardless of chronology, yet with gentle analogies scattered between every scene.

What exactly is waiting at the end?

The reader will turn the pages of this book with anxiety and expectation toward an unpredictable conclusion.

Well, I'll leave this introduction that doesn't look like an introduction (a spastic introduction!) here, and from here on, I would like to unravel the relationship between this book and connections, incorporating my (arbitrary) perspective and (prejudiced) interpretation.

As is often said, it is said that the history of the nation of America did not have the mechanism of feudalism (or monarchy) in the sense that existed in Europe.

This is because the understanding that at least since the ancestors of Americans created the Declaration of Independence, they have held "republicanism" as the philosophy of governance, is basically shared within American society.

Of course, they take pride in that and have upheld their values mainly in the way of "liberalism."

The "isolationism" that has been emphasized especially since the Monroe Doctrine regarded European forms of governance as barbaric systems, and they have valued the "horizontal" connections between citizens rather than the "vertical" relationship of ruler and ruled that entrusts sovereignty to a monarch.

However, the most interesting point in this regard is the observational description of the American poor developed in "Slaughterhouse-Five."

In this book, there is a fictional character named Howard W. Campbell Jr., an American playwright who betrayed America (to be precise, as an American spy) and joined the side of Nazi Germany, and I will quote the following report, which is also fictional, that he is said to have written.

To add, the passage here regarding the nature of Americans is a part where the reason why American enlisted prisoners of war are "vulgar," do not know "how to love themselves," and are incomplete beings who cannot even "love others" because they are poor, is explained to the Germans.

According to Campbell Jr., the American poor not only "mock" themselves for not having money (not having the "ability" to earn money), but are also lonely beings who cannot love anyone because they are driven by a sense of "self-blame."

Therefore, such notions get in the way, public and mutual aid do not function properly, the rich connect with each other and become even richer, and the poor cannot trust anyone and have no choice but to despise each other and become isolated.

And Campbell Jr. does not hesitate to describe the soldiers who went to war while remaining poor as "grumpy children who think it would be better to be dead if they had the time."

This part should be considered as having the biting irony of Campbell Jr., or the author Vonnegut, effectively at work.

This is because, precisely because they are forced to take responsibility for themselves to society for not having the power to earn money, which everyone should be able to get easily, the poor "despise" themselves and can only behave as "grumpy children" who sulk that they have no value (and that those in the same circumstances as them also have no value).

As we have seen, Campbell Jr.'s diagnosis was that the belief in meritocracy, that is, (excessive) ability-ism, prevents the American poor from behaving as "adults" with pride while remaining poor.

That is why one cannot hope for "brotherly love"-like homosocial solidarity among American enlisted soldiers who have no choice but to become servile from their poor circumstances.

In other words, it means that Americans (as seen by Campbell Jr.) decisively lack the attitude of immediately regarding defeat in economic market competition as a defeat of their own power, and trying to carve out a path for themselves while trusting their companions no matter what difficulties they encounter, even if they fall into poor circumstances.

However, on the other hand, at least Vonnegut himself does not seem to show an attitude of committing to the belief in ability-ism shown there, or to brotherly love.

Rather, it is safe to say that what he wanted to emphasize was to show the limits of the mental process of "self-power," which is sometimes fanatic and anti-physical, with a writing style that includes "laughter."

For example, the spirit of "hard work" and "asceticism" inherent in American Puritanism valued inexhaustible productivity and reality creation, which led to the later "New Thought" and self-help spiritual movements.

The lineage of self-help advocates in America, such as Phineas Quimby, a mesmerist who lived in the 19th century, Napoleon Hill, who compiled success philosophy, Joseph Murphy, and Norman Vincent Peale, who is said to have influenced Donald Trump, emphasizes the idea of Other-Power Centeredness, which is now popular, such as "if you wish strongly with your heart, it will surely come true" or "it's all in how you take it."

There is almost no doubt that such ideas have been passed down steadily while changing their form from the counterculture that swept the 1960s to the ideas of Silicon Valley.

Based on the above, it is necessary to think about what the resistance shown by Vonnegut really was.

I believe that it was precisely against the zeitgeist of America at the time, which was based on Self-Power Centeredness.

No, not just at the time, but isn't that spirit still covering the country of America thickly even now?

Vonnegut's intention was that the world is established precisely because Other-Power, which cannot be helped by one's own power, is intervening, and humans can never escape from such constraints.

In connection with that, one of the impressive words repeated many times in the book, "so it goes," is a phrase in the narrative text that is mainly uttered when a person (including things like inorganic matter) dies in the work, and in it, one can glimpse something like the view of life and death of the Tralfamadorians, who, unlike humans, can freely look over the four-dimensional world.

For example, like this.

The "Other-Power" represented by the words that appear here is the denial of free will indicated by "determinism," and it appears as a wall that cannot be changed no matter how much a being belonging to the same universe struggles to change the coming conclusion.

However, on the other hand, humans as a species, unlike Tralfamadorians, cannot look over all the future and the past as if looking over the Rocky Mountains.

Therefore, for humans, rather than determinism, it is experienced as a problem of "luck."

This is the second reason for the sense of unfairness in Other-Power Centeredness (connections).

However, luck already includes the first reason, that is, the problem of birth and blood ties.

Along with that, things like being adopted into a wealthy family or, otherwise, the realization of marrying into money like Billy's life after the war are added.

Regarding the latter, although it feels like some possibility of intervention remains compared to the uncontrollable problem of birth, it would still be impossible to control it completely because others and the outside world are involved.

Therefore, strictly speaking, from the human perspective, the former and the latter must be distinguished. (Of course, from the perspective of a Tralfamadorian, since they stand on the position of determinism, the two are ultimately the same.)

The biggest reason why the two must be distinguished is that it seems Vonnegut felt that the relationships created by the former alone were "not enough."

Some readers may have already noticed without me saying it, but I speculate that Vonnegut is pitting Other-Power Centeredness, and even connections themselves, head-on against the Self-Power Centered American zeitgeist.

However, relationships that presuppose the reproduction of blood ties or blood ties themselves, such as marital relationships or real parent-child relationships, can become nourishment for Self-Power Centeredness rather than resisting it.

Especially in America, because it is said that a class system including monarchy has not effectively existed (of course, if you think about slavery, this is a deception), creating something from zero = self-power was the premise of everything.

But even so, families with a lot of money try to form marital relationships with equal or better families as much as possible, and it is certain that children born into wealthy families were more likely to be blessed with opportunities for education and career formation.

The scary thing about the country of America might be that such real premises are hidden under the name of Self-Power Centeredness, and if things go wrong, arguments that the current success was all acquired by one's own ability and effort, and that the reason why people who cannot acquire success appear is because that person's ability or effort is lacking, could even pass.

Only people like them who have powerful connections from the beginning strengthen their ties more and more, and there is no room for people who do not have many connections to enter.

For example, if you use connections, you can obtain various information without moving yourself, get help when you are in trouble, and cooperate with everyone to accomplish things that you could never do alone.

In that sense, money, land, family background, authority, personal connections, and manpower are all connections, and the more of these connections you possess, the more you can do.

In the end, connections are the essential power for the self (its body) to "expand" to the outside world.

Now, how does the concept of "connections" appear in this book?

Let's try looking at the following passage.

Actually, this scene is where Eliot Rosewater, who was in the same room as Billy at the post-war veterans' hospital, is explaining the content of a book titled "The Gospel from Outer Space" by Kilgore Trout, a fictional science fiction writer who appears in this book. (I forgot to mention, but Campbell Jr., who appeared earlier, as well as Trout and Rosewater, are characters who appear in Vonnegut's past works.)

Furthermore, Rosewater (the narrative text summarizing his explanation) continues about the development of Trout's novel as follows.

As written here, please note that the Jesus who appears in Trout's novel does not have a blood relationship (father and son) with God, and that relationship is one of adoption (adoptive father and adopted son) that is suddenly formed just before Jesus's death.

I think perhaps Vonnegut wanted to say that we must not underestimate the possibility that people who are not blessed with connections from birth might, through luck or coincidence, acquire connections later on.

This certainly leads to the idea of the 'extended family' mentioned in 'Slapstick', which is the first novel he would later publish under the name Kurt Vonnegut.

In 'Slaughterhouse-Five', the connections that the protagonist Billy, who was not necessarily blessed with connections from birth, acquired after the war were ties to his father-in-law and the social standing his father-in-law held through his marriage to Valencia Merble.

Thanks to his father-in-law's backing, Billy achieved unusual success as an optometrist and lived a happy life without money troubles.

However, despite this, neither Vonnegut nor Billy ever pays any special attention to it. (Even if there is a value judgment as to whether it is desirable or not.)

This is because Billy is a spastic time traveler who moves back and forth through all of his life randomly, and Vonnegut (or the reader) is also merely an existence that can go back and forth by flipping the pages of the medium called a novel, where the rise and fall of the characters are inscribed.

Billy's happiness and unhappiness are treated exactly the same there.

As if, from the eyes of the Tralfamadorians far away from Earth, all of it were cut out as a single scene arranged in the same space.

Everything is summarized as 'So it goes.'

The 'comedy' that Vonnegut continues to test in his own work is surely backed by this sense that everything is equal across the board.

Some might berate such an attitude of Vonnegut's as lethargy or a bad relativism dominated by resignation.

They might call him a vicious writer who denies the value of effort and mocks from on high how the world could become prosperous through the unfathomable abilities of humans.

But is that really the case?

A hint to such questions is already inserted in this book.

This passage itself is a well-known segment in America called the 'Serenity Prayer'.

For Vonnegut, the country of America where he lived may have appeared to have lost the 'wisdom' to distinguish between things that cannot be changed and things that can be changed.

Every reform is about to be triggered not by courage, but by the 'hatred' of those who harbor dissatisfaction, and self-reliance-centrism is becoming increasingly unstoppable.

Surprisingly, couldn't this apply perfectly to the current situation in America as well?

Vonnegut never thought that one should do nothing because not everything can be changed.

I think he was just obsessed above all else with having the courage to try to change things starting from the small things around him that he could reach, after calmly identifying what could be changed and what could not.

We should not be arrogant enough to think that everything can be changed, nor should we despair that nothing can be changed; we can try to make life even a little better while repeating trial and error at both ends.

As a result, although not everything went as well as I thought it would, a day might come when I can be truly satisfied that I have come to live a life a little richer than before, thanks to the help of people around me and unexpected coincidences.

At that time, that person will say this.

'So it goes.'

I think that true laughter is the <...> that visits at the very end of life.

A sense that there were things that went well and things that didn't, but that's okay, and that's good.

And that such a life could exist was only because of all the connections and ties other than self-reliance.

That is why, for us future <Connedians> who cannot experience spastic time travel like Billy, 'Slaughterhouse-Five' continues to be a book of modest hope.

Reference Materials

Naomu Aoyama, 'The Current Location of Democracy: From the Fault Lines of America' (Misuzu Shobo, 2022)

Jun Amamiya, 'Words That Make You a Conspiracy Theorist' (Forest Publishing, 2021)

Ken Ishida, 'Counter-Elite' (Bunshun Shinsho, 2025)

Kurt Vonnegut, 'If This Isn't Nice, What Is?: Advice to the Young—The Graduation Speeches' (translated by Toh EnJoe, Asukashinsha, 2016)

Kurt Vonnegut, 'Slapstick' (translated by Hisashi Asakura, Hayakawa Publishing, 2013)

Kurt Vonnegut Jr., 'Slaughterhouse-Five' (translated by Norio Ito, Hayakawa Publishing, 1978)

Dominique Chen + Noboru Yasuda, 'Dialogue on Future Body Theory' (included in 'Gendai Shiso September 2022 Issue: Special Feature = Metaverse - Artificial Intelligence, Cryptocurrency, VTuber... The Future of Evolving Virtual Spaces', Seidosha, 2022)

That is all!
How was it?

If you like, please follow, like, and share your thoughts.

Well then, see you in the next article!
Goodbye.