1
PAPER 1
As society develops with individuals bringing new ideas to fruition and the introduction
of new technological innovations, it seems that a culture focused on sharing information is
expanding. However, this type of culture is actually being threatened by the institutions being put
in place with these new innovations and ideas. In “Mark Zuckerberg’s War on Free Will” by
Franklin Foer, it is established that Facebook is a platform that is created for all to use for its
users to share information including opinions and personal details to connect with others. In
reality, Facebook has a paternalistic view as they want to have control over their users’
decisions. The company emphasizes this technocratic paternalism in desiring the radical
transparency of their user. In “The Ecstasy of Influence: A Plagiarism”,Johnathan Lethem
discusses and supports the idea of a commons, or a pool of resources that nobody owns but
anybody can use. Lethem identifies that with the current production of new ideas, more people
want their ideas and art to be copyrighted, which he conveys through the term usemonopoly. In
“Homo Religiosus”, Karen Armstrong also identifies a sort of commons when she discusses
specific religious traditions that are used by many communities for many years. The type of
commons that Armstrong describes is no longer as prevalent as things like copyright and
paternalism are starting to become more significant in the world. Usemonopoly and technocratic
paternalism threaten the evolution of religious commons by directly controlling who can utilize
ideas, which should otherwise be available to all.
Facebook’s belief in the ultimate transparency in the user promotes the company’s
technocratic paternalism. The idea of radical transparency deceives the user into thinking that the
sharing of information is beneficial when it is actually a way for the company to have more
control over the user’s decisions. As Foer explains, “The theory holds that the sunshine of
2
sharing our intimate details will disinfect the moral mess of our lives. Even if we don't intend for
our secrets to become public knowledge, their exposure will improve society. With the looming
threat that our embarrassing information will be broadcast, we'll behave better. And perhaps the
ubiquity of incriminating photos and damning revelations will prod us to become more tolerant
of one another's sins” (Foer 106). Facebook veils the true intentions of its belief in users’
transparency by claiming that it will help make society better. Instead, it chips away at the user’s
freedom and makes users give up intimate and personal information about themselves. It causes
people to lose their freedom to present themselves how they want to be seen. The company
blackmails its users into sharing information about themselves to others by claiming that
exposing these secrets to others will be beneficial as it will allow society to be more tolerable of
each other. The company’s belief that users will be holding up a mirror to the worst parts of
themselves by revealing their darkest secrets is a facade. It makes it seem like it promotes a
commons in which people can see others’ information and use that to better themselves.
However, it actually essentially destroys the commons as it allows for control over information.
Although Facebook encourages its users to expose their personal information in order to improve
society, it instead is the company’s tactic to gain more paternalistic power.
Usemonopoly restricts commons as it prevents a shared space of idea sharing and instead
allows specific control over who can use what information. Since usemonopoly is basically
copyright, it means someone owns it and can determine who uses it. This contradicts a commons
as a commons promotes the idea that no one has the power to decide who uses the resources and
how one uses it. Anybody can use it, and no one is in charge. Lethem expands on this idea,
“Copyright is a ‘right’ in no absolute sense; it is a government-granted monopoly on the use of
creative results. Whether the monopolizing beneficiary is a living artist or some artist's heirs or
3
some corporation's shareholders, the loser is the community, including living artists who might
make splendid use of a healthy public domain” (Lethem 239). Lethem describes that copyright
is not actually a right as it can be used to control others to do certain things. Usemonopoly allows
for more control over what should be considered free will. In a commons, anyone has the right
and power to adapt certain ideas or resources and make it their own. Copyright prevents this art
of sharing and remaking as it dictates who can use what resources and determines what it can be
used for. It restricts the freedom to make our own decisions and to produce art the way we want
to. It essentially takes away from the community that forms through the commons in the sharing
and exchanging of ideas and information.
Religious traditions that are passed down through many communities can be considered a
commons as it emphasizes a sharing of ideas and art. Armstrong discusses various cultures and
the rituals they performed as a community. The art that they had was shared, and they passed
down the same ideas for interpretation by anyone through generations. Armstrong explains, “A
creation story was primarily therapeutic. People wanted to tap into the massive implosion of
energy that had--somehow-brought the world we know into being, so they would recite a
'creation myth when they were in need of an infusion of sacred potency: during a political crisis,
at a sickbed, or when they were building a new house” (Armstrong 11). People were able to
collectively connect with religion when they needed hope in tough times. These myths and
stories were a common pool of resources that people could go to when they needed help
explaining a hardship they were going through or were losing hope in the world. It did not matter
who created the story, it was told to others and could have been changed based on what was
needed at the time. This relates to the idea of a common as these stories were shared and no one
had power over them or could control who used them. People were free to change their myths
4
and their stories based on what they needed. They sought out shared religious experiences to
fulfill their needs and that was what made them appreciate the stories even more. It did not
matter who created the story or even if the story was accurate, all that mattered was that they had
a strong connection to these tales as they inspired hope for all in a multitude of ways.
Usemonopoly and technocratic paternalism restrict the expansion of religious commons
as they direct control over who can use the resources. A commons is the idea of a shared pool of
resources that anybody can use, and this can be applied to religion as well. Religious traditions
are passed down through generations and between communities. Any member of society could
perform a religious ritual or conceive a religious idea and interpret their own way that could
adapt to their world view. There is no controller who determines who can use these ideas and
how they have to be used. Usemonopoly emphasizes control over resources as it copyrights a
certain idea and restricts the uses to that one person or company. Everyone is not free to use it
and make it their own with their own perspective. Technocratic paternalism emphasizes control
over decision making and conceiving new ideas as well. Technological companies like Facebook
try to have power over their users and how they perceive themselves to others despite promoting
their companies as platforms that anyone is free to use how they want. These institutions are a
threat to religious commons as they direct control to one source of power, rather than being an
open source of resources for everyone.
5
PAPER 2
Analytic Essay 2
Religion evolves over time through adaptations and learning from other religions. As
others form and expand upon the old, the old starts to evolve based on the new. Everything is out
there and used to inspire new things to form, however some believe it is stealing. In Jonathan
Lethem’s “The Ecstasy of Influence,” he believes that art and music is meant to be shared and
reworked; it is not considered as plagiarizing because no one person owns the pieces but owned
by everyone to use. Franklin Foer writes in “Mark Zuckerberg’s War on Free Will” that
Facebook is used as a common ground for ideas and thoughts to be shared so that everyone can
share what is on their mind and take part in individuality; however, the algorithms strip away
that individuality when it manipulates their users. Lastly, in Karen Armstrong’s “Homo
Religiosus,” she discusses how religion is passed on through generations often using art which
would trigger the evolution of religion. As the world moved on and economies grew, the
religious rituals and traditions would grow as well to be better suited for the world people were
living in. When people start to take ownership and participate in usemonopolies and technocratic
paternalism, it threatens the evolution of religious commons because it prevents the public from
using any idea or thought.
Art is not created out of thin air and rather is created from the combination of other
pieces of work. Art is like energy and how it cannot be created nor destroyed but can only be
6
converted to another form. It takes a new form by using multiple art works to produce another
one. Lethem states that “invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist in creating out
of void but out of chaos” (Lethem 235). This shows how art is like energy and cannot be created
from nothing. Energy can only be changed by all the other energy in the world, just like art. It
takes in from its surroundings which is the “chaos” Lethem refers to. The environment contains
everything, and the art only chooses certain parts it wants to use. This is possible because the
world is owned by everyone and therefore allows everyone to use it in their own way. People
take in some parts and leave some parts for another piece of art which is what art is: a
culmination of different things taken from the surroundings.
Throughout the years, religion has always changed based on how the world was and
adapted to what society needed it to. Armstrong discussed how religion was not steady and
instead evolved as the world grew. As economies grew more powerful, the world had to run
differently, meaning the religion had to have some tweaks. Armstrong writes “Instead, they
developed a new set of myths and rituals based on the fecundity of the soil that filled the men
and women of the Neolithic age with religious awe. Tilling the fields became a ritual that
replaced the hunt, and the nurturing Earth took the place of the Animal Master” (Armstrong 7).
This demonstrates the evolution of the rituals had based on the world. As the world advanced,
the rituals adapted and performed similar functions but in a different way. In the past, people had
to hunt for their foods, but now people till the fields and have a farm to grow their foods. This is
because of the growth of the world which forces religion and rituals to adapt. Rituals and religion
grow together and if one remains still, they both remain with no growth. However, rituals and
religions can only grow when people use past rituals to adapt it so that it is applicable to the
world. When there is no adaptations to religions and rituals, world growth slows.
7
These adaptations are only possible when the world can be used by everyone; once
people take control and limit what people can or cannot use, it slows growth. The concept of
usemonopolies, discussed by Lethem, inhibits evolution because it enables people to own certain
things, preventing others from using it as a common ground. Lethem writes “At the same time,
copyright is revered by most established writers and artists as a birthright and bulwark, the
source of nurture for their infinitely fragile practices in a rapacious world” (Lethem 238).
Copyright and laws like it prevent artists from their true potential as they are limited to what they
can use to inspire them. Usemonopolies counter artists and their way of working because they
gather from their surroundings. However, when copyrights and usemonopolies are enacted, it
acts as a wall to what they can grab and therefore hinders their creativity and limits what they
can make. Because of this, innovation lacks which then slows down evolution. Art is the main
source of a religion and when that cannot change, religions cannot either.
Facebook limits the evolution of religion by forcing users to only post certain things and
only allows what Facebook wants on its platform which is through technocratic paternalism.
Facebook has the ability to manipulate their users into thinking and posting certain posts which
prevents users from being themselves. Although users believe they are in control, everything
they do is monitored and tweaked with. Facebook uses their algorithms to choose what users see
and believe in which does not give the user a choice. Foer discusses that “the company’s
algorithms sort the thousands of things a Facebook user could possibly see down to a smaller
batch of choice items. And then within those few dozen items, it decided what we might like to
read first” (Foer 112). This proves that Facebook is in control of what users see and can prevent
them from seeing certain posts and only show other posts. This is the technocratic paternalism
Foer mentions in his text because Facebook and its algorithms act as if they are the parents to
8
their users and decides what is best for them. When users are prevented from seeing everything,
they are then put at a disadvantage because they do not have all the information presented to
them. Because of this, art is now limited to what artists can choose out of which then slows down
religious growth since that is dependent on art. Art is one of the main factors that drive growth in
a religion, and once art is kept at a constant, religion will also be at a constant. This relates back
to how Facebook portrays technocratic paternalism because they monitor and control what their
users see and therefore limits the creativity that people have.
Art thrives and is meant to be used by others and does not have the copyright and patent
laws that prevent them from being used. However, once these laws are put in place, the
inspiration stops. This is because people can no longer gather from everyone else’s works, and
there is no more shared space that people can use to collaborate with. Artists want their work to
be shared and an inspiration to others which is why they want the common ground so that the
public can use it and make more pieces of art. Sectioning off certain parts of the common ground
will limit what artists can produce, slowing the evolution of religion. Religions have been passed
on through generations through artwork and rituals, and it starts to become stagnant when
usemonopolies and technocratic paternalism are apparent. Religious commons are meant to be
shared and is not considered plagiarism as it is common knowledge between artists that works
are used by others as an inspiration.
Usemonopolies and technocratic paternalism inhibits the growth and evolution of religion
as people are restricted from using their environment to inspire new forms of art. Algorithms
block the advancement of religion and rituals because it controls their users to only think a
certain way. Foer demonstrates through his text that Facebook uses their platform to control what
their users see and post which then blocks them from using their surrounding environment to
9
create a new piece of art. Armstrong argues that the evolution of religion thrives on art and
rituals being passed on because it will begin to change and adapt to the world since the it will
need to perform differently compared to the past. Lastly, Lethem bring the point of how
plagiarism is not all too bad as many artists use it to their advantage to create and inspire their
own works. He believes that there should instead be a common ground where artists can
collaborate with each other and pull from other people’s works to form their own. Through these
three pieces of text, the evolution of religion is threatened by the usemonopolies and technocratic
paternalism that copyright laws and Facebook enables.