The ‘zero-sum game’ theory is exclusively an economic peculiarity, and its application must be inadmissible in the humanities.
From an economics perspective, “A zero sum game is a situation where losses incurred by a player in a transaction result in an equal increase in gains of the opposing player. It is named this way because the net effect after gains and losses on both sides equals zero.” (Corporate Finance Institute)
The Merriam Webster dictionary defines zero-sum game as “a situation in which one person or group can win something only by causing another person or group to lose it.” (“Definition of ZERO-SUM GAME”)
As it is amply evident in both definitions, a ‘zero-sum game’ theory is a single-component-based reductionist one: a single-factor consideration founded upon the simultaneous addition and subtraction of that particular factor to and from the two sides (i.e. the parties involved) of the equation.
[Note: a ‘zero-sum game’ theory requires certain stipulations (usually negative ones, such as: “excluding taxes”), or a ceteris paribus assumption (i.e. all things remaining equal or held the same) in order to be applied in economics]
The purpose of this article, however, is to establish the reason(s) rendering the ‘zero-sum game’ inapplicable to the humanities, not to appraise its economic merits.
Should we embark on the task to disassemble the theory down to the smallest particles, we are likely to conclude that it all starts with the number ‘zero’.
Question: what are the characteristics and qualities inherent to the number ‘zero’?
At a quantitative level, zero has three main characteristics—chiefly mathematical.
The first being preservative: when added or subtracted to and from another number, the other number is preserved.
The second being consumptive/exterminatory: when multiplied by another number, the other number is consumed as if zero has exterminated its existence.
The third being the power to obscure: when a number is divided by zero, the answer is undefined—in other words, unknown.
Zero is also the midpoint of the continuum.
At a qualitative level of analysis, it seems most reasonable to start with the statement that between -∞ and ∞ on the continuum, ‘zero’ is the only number with quantitative as well as qualitative attributes—besides -∞ and ∞, that is.
How so, one may ask?
An examination of human emotions should supply us with an answer. Emotions cannot be measured numerically. Nevertheless, there’s a state of emotions that has a direct numerical correspondent (not by means of figurative speech, but literally) via the latter’s linguistic expression (nothing): the state of emotional neutrality. Just like singularity, duality, and trinity are linguistic expressions relating to one, two, and three respectively, so is nothing in relation to zero.
When a person expresses his emotional state with, “I feel nothing,” it doesn’t mean the absence or non-existence of any emotion whatsoever; it is rather an indication of that person’s emotions being in a state of perfect neutrality; wherein all conflicting pairs of emotions are found at equal levels (or any pair thereof, should the subject of concern be a single emotion and its opposite i.e. love and hate); hence producing the perfect equilibrium.
Nothing (zero), in this instant, then simply denotes a situation where the collective outcome of emotional interactions within a person has no single emotion that is intense enough to surpass its opposite and break the threshold of awareness to introduce itself to the cognitive faculties as the presiding emotional state.
At a qualitative level, therefore, establishing the perfect equilibrium is an inherent quality pertaining to zero.
As such, zero stands as the universal equilibrium.
The ‘sum’ component of this game—with zero as its prefix—signifies that the same amount or figure which has been added to one side of the equation, has been simultaneously deducted from the other.
Now that we have unraveled the ‘zero-sum game’ and examined its particles accordingly, it is time to explore the reason(s) denying its admission to the humanities. For the sake of brevity, an inspection of how the ‘zero-sum game’ has been applied in one subject field of the humanities (i.e. politics) heretofore—where it ought to be deemed inapplicable—would suffice the purpose of illustration.
In a research article by Shai Davidai and Martino Ongis, the ‘zero-sum game’ is perceived as a thinking mode, where the circumstances for its application by either party (liberals and conservatives) are identified, and their impact underscored. To use one of the examples—most controversial, one might add—mentioned therein,
“Whereas liberals often believe that social policies that support underprivileged groups benefit society as a whole, conservatives tend to view the gains of some groups (e.g., women, African-Americans, and immigrants) as offset by other groups’ losses (e.g., men, European-Americans, and U.S. citizens).” (Davidai and Ongis)
Well, the truth of the matter is this:
Whether “social policies that support underprivileged groups benefit society as a whole…,” or, “the gains of some groups (e.g., women, African-Americans, and immigrants) [are] offset by other groups’ losses (e.g., men, European-Americans, and U.S. citizens),” neither case could be classified as ‘zero-sum’.
Social policies have a direct impact on the polity’s quality of life. Unless they have been contrived by God Almighty, there are no recognizable plausible means to improve the quality of someone’s life and equally impair that of another simultaneously, or even along a definite time-frame for that matter. Implications, both foreseeable and unforeseeable, are inevitable.
For example, if an aggrieved immigrant, having fled the injustices he had suffered in his home country, attains a legal residence status, is granted a work permit in the U.S., and consequently secures a job, every single aspect of his life (quantitative and qualitative) would exponentially improve. While it is ridiculously far-fetched—nay, impossible—to assume that a U.S. citizen, who would have arguably accepted the same job that the immigrant has landed, would possibly suffer commensurate impairment in the quality of his life—much less similar injustices the immigrant has had endured. It should be perceptible, thus, that the assumption is entirely a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity).
The same line of reasoning could be extended to apply to innumerable [with emphasis] case-scenarios pertaining to politics and other subject fields of the humanities.
Most likely, we would end up entertaining the exact same conviction time and again: that the supposedly ‘zero-sum’ be it game or thinking, when applied in the humanities, fail to present a state of perfect equilibrium at any qualitative level—which in itself is an inherent quality of zero—thereby cannot be permitted into the fields of humanities studies; lest we are impelled to bring the ceteris paribus condition into force, and dehumanize ourselves in the process; for humans are ever mutable creatures with constant intrinsic fluctuations, byproducts of endless series of actions, reactions, and interactions. The duly result of which would be an utter alienation of any field of the humanities, for none of them could manifest without the human ‘subject’.
In fine, the ‘zero-sum game’ is exclusively an economic peculiarity (with preconditions of its own), and its application must be inadmissible in the humanities.
Reference
Corporate Finance Institute. “Zero Sum Game – How a Zero Sum Vs Non Zero Sum Game Works.” Corporate Finance Institute, 9 Dec. 2019, corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/zero-sum-game-non-zero-sum/.
Davidai, Shai, and Martino Ongis. “The Politics of Zero-sum Thinking: The Relationship Between Political Ideology and the Belief That Life is a Zero-sum Game.” Science Advances, 1 Dec. 2019, advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/12/eaay3761.
“Definition of ZERO-SUM GAME.” Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America’s Most-trusted Online Dictionary, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zero-sum%20game.
