A few weeks ago parts of the libertarian intellectual scene marked what would have been Ayn Rand’s 100th birthday. Among a number of articles reflecting on her life and novels was this surprisingly conservative article by Reason magazine regular Cathy Young. Young is determined to present both Rand’s great virtues alongside her not-so agreeable side, particularly her intolerance of anyone, who, however constructively, criticised her.
But the article contains a number of charges about Rand and her system of ideas which I think are unfair. I want to address them not as some sort of defence of Rand – a writer who had some serious faults, in my view – but because the points Young makes can be applied to classical liberal/libertarian views more broadly.
Young claims that Rand had no time for family life of any kind and that her main characters appeared to have no enjoyable family life at all. As a result, her value system is held to be seriously deficient, in that Young claims that a viable human society requires us to feel obligations towards our fellow family members even though a person has not chosen the family he or she is in. (The same sort of argument is used by conservatives to justify loyalty to a country). This surely overlooks the point that for Rand, the relationships in life that matter are the ones people choose to enter into, not those born of historical accident. I am lucky enough to have been raised by two loving and smart parents. Very lucky, in fact. But it is obviously not so great for many other people and I have no doubt that a few of my friends and acquaintances have been drawn to libertarian ideas as a way of rebelling against the sort of unpleasant experiences that many children can have. So I certainly don’t condemn Rand because her heroes and heroines did not take out time from their adventures to change the kiddies’ diapers. After all, many great works of fiction contain characters with no reference to family issues at all. Young does not address it, but for Rand, and indeed many others, there can be no such thing as unconditional love. The sense of obligation I feel towards my parents cannot, in my view, be divorced from my sense of gratitude towards them. If they had been monsters, I would feel quite differently.
Another charge that Young makes is that Rand (and presumably many libertarians) had no interest in charity and therefore a society created by rational egoists would have no base of voluntary organisations able to help others in times of distress. That seems odd. As David Kelley points out in this marvellous book, “Unrugged Individualism”, rational self interested people have a direct vested interest in cultivating a benevolent, friendly disposition towards their fellow humans. In fact many people become firefighters, nurses, paramedic rescuers and the like precisely because it is an important value to them to do such things. In short, charity is not in conflict with enlightened self interest at all. What counts is that the actions concerned are voluntary rather than something that is imposed by coercive force.
Such drawbacks aside, Young’s piece is well worth reading. I discovered, for example, that Rand did not have much interest in evolution, which seems a bit strange for a declared atheist and enthusiast for science. I would have thought that evolution is something that fits quite snugly into a pro-reason, pro-freedom political phiolosphy, as Daniel Dennett has shown.
Johnathan, what do you mean by evolution?
I just re-read Catherine Young’s article in Reason, and it remains a disgraceful, evasive, purposefully misinformed, ad-hominem smear attack on Rand painted as being moderately in favor of her ideas–when you have friends like these, who needs enemies?
I tore-up the subscription card to ‘Reason’ that I had been meaning to send in after I read that article.
“Rand did not have much interest in evolution, which seems a bit strange for a declared atheist and enthusiast for science. I would have thought that evolution is something that fits quite snugly into a pro-reason, pro-freedom political phiolosphy, as Daniel Dennett has shown.”
Nathanial Brandon’s bitter musings aside, Rand certainly believed in evolution, and believed that it was a important part of science; but being a *philosopher* and not a *biologist* she didn’t focus on biology–why should she?
Furthermore, Rand disbelieved in a deity for much deeper and more profound philosophic reasons than Darwin’s theory of evolution disproving the creation myths (Genesis) of one particular religion.
…being a *philosopher* and not a *biologist* she didn’t focus on biology–why should she?
I presume that there is a similar justification for why the description of how steel gets from its producers to its consumers, essential to the plot development of “Atlas Shrugged”, was so wrong that I, who was purchasing tons of alloy steel at the time I read the book, had a hard time continuing to read it.
I love how Randians contort themselves into distinguishing between “altruism” and “benevolence.” It’s the same thing: caring about other people for their own sake, even though you don’t stand to benefit. “cultivating a benevolent, friendly disposition towards their fellow humans” – a standard so nebulous it becomes meaningless.
I myself have not read any of Rand’s writings, but I did read a host of articles around the time of Rand’s centenary; Arts and Letters Daily had a stack of links on the subject, including the Young article that Jonathan linked to.
I must say that I’m not much impressed by Rand’s ideas although I will have to read her books at some time to give her ideas a fair hearing. Going into an author’s works with low expectations does at least give the author a chance to surprise.
Jonathan, I do like your point about families though; in my family, I tend to save my affections for those relatives that I have an emotional connection to. I may not have a choice in who my relatives are, but I do have a choice in which relatives I spend time and emotional energy on. When my parents were alive, I certainly gave a lot more attention to my mother rather then my father.
And I also agree with your points about charity and volunteering. There is absolutely nothing unrational about devoting time, energy and money to helping the community you live in be a pleasant, agreeable place to live in.
Most Objectivists make the distinction between benevolence and altruism this way: Altruism entails self-sacrifice, the giving up of values; benevolence does not.
An altruistic act would be to support your bum brother-in-law who is able, but unwilling to support himself. A benevolent act would be working for a volunteer fire company which protects your home and the homes of your neighbors.
Being kind and generous can be selfish. When someone acts as such, they cultivate respect and good will towards themselves, which is likely to lead to better realtionships and aid in a time of need. It is not impossible to be benevolent without being altruistic.
It is rare to read any critique of Rand that does not include various criticisms of her personality and her writing style, just as in the article cited. This approach has become the standard now, it seems, when analyzing any influential thinker, reference the relentless attempts to denigrate Jefferson because he may or may not have fathered mixed race children, or because he was cranky with those with whom he disagreed.
I have mentioned Rand here on occasion, not because I consider her the be-all and end-all, but because I think she identified a couple of very significant aspects of the way human culture has functioned, and malfunctioned, as it developed. Her personal idiosyncracies, or the literary quality of her writing, doesn’t concern me that much. (I always get a laugh out of anyone who is somehow offended by the characterizations in Atlas, as if they had never heard of an archetype, and couldn’t fathom their purpose in the book).
In severe shorthand, because this is not a master’s thesis in philosophy, just a comment on a blog thread, the important ideas are these:
The reason human history is a series of calamities marked by a strange lack of progress is that we have been listening to the wrong people tell us what is right and wrong, allowing the wrong people to define the relationships between individuals, and between individuals and society, and, most significantly, allowing sentiment to override a rational approach to life.
The mystics of muscle and the mystics of spirit, the blank-out, the fluid universe where anything is possible, the saccharine do-gooder who would do anything for a bum but never recognize achievement as laudable, these and many others peopled a troubling universe in which need was the ultimate value, and productive achievement was always suspect.
Go back and read the comments in the thread about Microsoft and Bill Gates from a few weeks ago if you want to see the hatred and envy that any successful person generates in some who, for whatever reason, can only find the negative in any achievement. And this is a site associated with support for capitalism, not DU.
It may seem odd to some, but the way to approach Rand is the way one must approach any set of theories—take what valuables are offered and figure out the rest for yourself. There are more than enough fanatics and true-believers in the world already.
Danny Taggart (good name) is wrong to say there is no difference between altruism and benevolence. By altruism, Rand was describing and attacking the idea that is okay for people to be made to sacrifice their life and happiness to another at the behest of a higher power, or the collective. It has nothing to do with voluntary acts of kindness which are of value to both the giver and recipient of charity. It is not a piece of word-play. (In any event I believe precision in language has consequences, as Rand did).
I do not believe libertarians can successfully attack the idea of the all-embracing State unless we attack at root the idea that “society” or whatever has the right to grab a huge chunk of our wealth on the grounds that other people “need” it. To do that requires a philosophy, a system of ideas. Rand’s were a good place to start.
Mitherial – I partly agree with you about Reason. The publication seems to have lost some of its hard edge these days, spending rather too much time writing jokey articles about drugs. This may have something to do with the departure from the editorial slot of Virginia Postrel.
Oh Winzeler, who asks what I mean by evolution, I define it as the emergence of complex phenomena over a period of time independent of any over-arching Deity or controlling force: to wit, markets, flora and fauna, phenomena like the English common law, language, etc.
What always tends to annoys me is that some people take it upon themselves to attack Rand without knowing anything about what she thought, wrote or said.
Most of the time they do it with Ad Homimen attacks and spreading silly rumors.
If anyone has some good arguments I’d like to hear them very much.
If you just want to critique her person please go teach at some US college.
Johnathan, just on Dennett: I am a huge fan of his but I should point out that Freedom Evolves is about the issue of free will and not political freedom as such.
Who really care about Ayn Rand and Cathy Young ? I will “live on” without their books. But thank you very much indeed Jonathan for this post, I’m sure you’re speaking for many rebels (against conservatism).
Alice, thanks. I think Rand is worth writing about given the enormous impact of her views. I find it rather odd that Reason magazine ran what was a fairly negative piece. 100 years from now, she’ll still be remembered and widely read, I reckon. I certainly hope so.
My main beef with Rand is that she did not like rock and roll music. Now that is crazy!
Johnathan: in her “Letters”, you can find a sweet little note that she wrote on June 1, 1967, to Duane Eddy, thanking him for his music. “Rock and roll”? You call it.
Cato: you’re entirely correct in your first point. I first read Rand in 1969 (“Virtue of Selfishness”). I have great big problems with her. There is a crucial disconnect between her ethics and politics. (Briefly: Roy Childs was correct, before he recanted.) All that said, however, I do believe that outrageous ignorance of most people who remark on her is just about the most consistent and persistent phenomenon in the whole deal.
“Dagny Taggart” — you’re dead wrong. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
Johnathan: in her “Letters”, you can find a sweet little note that she wrote on June 1, 1967, to Duane Eddy, thanking him for his music. “Rock and roll”? You call it.
Cato: you’re entirely correct in your first point. I first read Rand in 1969 (“Virtue of Selfishness”). I have great big problems with her. There is a crucial disconnect between her ethics and politics. (Briefly: Roy Childs was correct, before he recanted.) All that said, however, I do believe that outrageous ignorance of most people who remark on her is just about the most consistent and persistent phenomenon in the whole deal.
“Dagny Taggart” — you’re dead wrong. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about.
Ayn Rand did think that “benevolence” was a good thing (it would have odd if she had not) and characters in her books are often shown helping people out without any hope of a cash reward, she opposed “altruism” (which Rand defined as the doctrine that people can only find meaning in their lives by serving others).
I thought the above was well known. Although I suppose the article could be pointing at one of the basic points of Rand’s philosophy – the importance of work.
The man who talked about buying steel reminded me of that. Doing a job that is worth doing and doing it well is a basic point for Rand.
Actually (if Rand was to be true to what she said) Rand should have welcomed someone saying “I know you are a writer not a steel buyer, but the book would have been better if you had got this bit right”.
I wonder if someone like Isabel Paterson would have been concerned with matters like that (my guess is that she would have been).
Although it is well to remember that “Atlas Shrugged” (unlike the Fountainhead which is clearly set in the early 20th century) is set in alternative future (a future that is falling apart). It is “romantic” work, not one claiming to present a photograph of the United States in 1957.
As for families and children – the attack does not fit what Rand writes about the “fearless creatures” and their parents in the valley in Atlas Shrugged.
For the record I am not a follower of Ayn Rand, but I agree the attack does not make much sense.
For the interested, a very good critique of Ayn Rand’s ideas:
“Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality: A Critique of Ayn Rand’s Epistemology“, By Scott Ryan
Mr Ryan sais in the book that what is good in objectivism is not new, and what is new is not good. He is a libertarian philosopher.
Joel, thanks for the link.
I partly disagree with what Ryan says, though he makes some good points. Rand could have learned a lot from discussing her ideas with people like Karl Popper, for instance. She did not interact enough with other major and potentially helpful allies. But I think her contribution to the idea of ethical egoism, her ideas on concept formation, the reason for having moral values, etc, were original, and largely valid (in my ‘umble view).
Anyway, originality is greatly over-rated. Often, it is sufficient to restate important ideas in interesting and exciting ways. Rand, for her faults, was brilliant in this regard. (I have a sense that a lot of folk, even libertarians, are just jealous).
rgds
Joe, Ryan is a pantheist who says Objectivism is bunk because Rand rejected belief in God. To attack Rand for being irrational because she did not believe in a supreme being is absurd.