• Friday Messiah: Ayn Rand

    So what the heck is the true meaning of Christmas, anyway?  Here is what Ayn Rand, perhaps the strangest of modern cult messiahs, had to say:

    The best aspect of Christmas is the aspect usually decried by the mystics: the fact that Christmas has been commercialized. The gift-buying . . . stimulates an enormous outpouring of ingenuity in the creation of products devoted to a single purpose: to give men pleasure. And the street decorations put up by department stores and other institutions—the Christmas trees, the winking lights, the glittering colors—provide the city with a spectacular display, which only “commercial greed” could afford to give us.

    Objectivist Tree Ornaments
    Objectivist Tree Ornaments

    For a Rand quote, I find that unusually entertaining.  But what’s so strange about Rand as a cult leader?  We tend to think of cults as being irrational by definition, based on bizarre ideas, unbelievable unless you’re under the spell of a mind-controlling messiah.  Rand’s cult is, on the surface, the very antithesis of that: a group based around the idealization of the rational and the objective—hence the name, Objectivism.  Rand’s gospel involved, not mystical healings or heaven-sent powers, but individual rights, the moral pursuit of self-interest, and laissez-faire capitalism.  So where does the cult aspect come in?

    Ayn_Rand1Ayn Rand was a novelist by trade, but a philosopher by inclination.  Many people consider her the most important novelist AND philosopher of the twentieth century.  Many do not.  She was born Alisa Rosenbaum in Russia in 1905 to a privileged professional Jewish family, somewhat impoverished in 1917 by the revolution. She studied history and philosophy in Petrograd University, but already she was writing; and when she got a visa to visit American relatives in 1925, she stayed on, went to Hollywood, and after some of the usual vissicitudes became a screenwriter and novelist.  She also married a minor actor named Frank O’Connor in 1929, a marriage that lasted until his death in 1979.  But her writing had a purpose beyond movies, fame or fortune.  Her books were intended to be vehicles for her developing philosophy; her characters were idealized people demonstrating how the world according to Ayn Rand should work.

    And how is that?  If you strip off the jargon, her books seem to be saying that humanity divides into heroic individuals, who need to go their own way and do their own thing, viewing their own happiness as the highest moral good; and parasites, who bleat about altruism and collectivism and helping the needy, but are really just trying to leech off the heroic true achievers.  The imperative, then, is that one must be rational, must think for oneself, and must be an individual of the fairly rugged persuasion.  Which is ironic, given how things turned out.

    cover3jThe two novels for which she is most famous are The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957).  These were her manifestos; and alas, for some us, they suffer as novels from having to bear the heavy burden of her philosophy.  Myself, I find them stodgy, stiff, clichéd, and peopled with cardboard characters.  The heroes are all big, rich and handsome.  The villains are weak, snivelling and small.  The women like to be taken by force.  The dialogue is as far from natural as it is possible to be—one character, John Galt of Atlas Shrugged, delivers a radio speech that runs for a full chapter (over fifty solid pages), would take three hours to deliver aloud, and plods through, in deadening detail, the philosophy of objectivism.  Myself, I’d have dashed that radio against the wall within the first five minutes.  And the critics of the time pretty much expressed similar views.

    BUT—some people found Rand’s novels revelatory, literally life-changing. These people tended to be intelligent, young, well educated and upper-middle-class, reading Rand in their teens or early twenties.  An admiring group began to gather around her in her New York apartment, hanging on her every word.  The Ayn Rand cult was born.  Atlas Shrugged became the next thing to a holy text.

    It is interesting to see, through the memoirs of various participants in Rand’s circle, how a literary discussion group can morph into a personality cult.  The venerated leader is empowered to lay down the law to her followers—what they must think, which works of art are correct for them to appreciate, whom they may form sexual relationships with, and so forth.  Her every word must be considered capital-T Truth, to be internalized without question or debate.  A hierarchy develops, with an inner circle laying down the law to the rest in the leader’s name, and exerting psychological and even physical pressure to keep lower members in line.

    All those steps were taken in short order by Rand’s circle, and became more marked as her circle grew into an organization.  Harsh criticism and agonized self-criticism were common, with distinctly Orwellian overtones. The ultimate penalty, though, was excommunication, after which the excommunicated individual was to be considered dead, in a way reminiscent of, say, Scientology or the Latter Day Saints.  A large number of young people came out of the Ayn Rand experience bitter and damaged.

    Ayn’s personality also emerges clearly in memoirs of people who passed through her cult.  Autocratic, egoistic, jealous, demanding of attention, prone to terrible rages if crossed; but also highly intelligent, stimulating, charismatic, addictive.  Getting Rand’s nod of approval became an obsession among her followers; losing her favour became their worst fear.   This is the great irony: to gain her approval, they were required to stop thinking for themselves—in the service of a philosophy that prized heroic individualism, they had to turn themselves into clones.  And by all accounts, they had to spend so much time worrying about getting things right, and casting out wrong thinking, that there was little opportunity to pursue happiness, productive achievement, or rationality.  It sounds like a particularly earnest, anxious and joyless cult.

    1953BrandenWeddingjNow the dirt—the gossipy bit.  Though it’s illuminating gossip, so it’s in for a reason.  The original inner circle consisted largely of Canadians, oddly enough, some of them related to each other.  At the top, the brightest and best, the designated successor, was a lad from Winnipeg, Nathaniel Branden, and his girlfriend Barbara Weidman, who first came under Ayn’s influence when they were 19 years old.  As the group evolved into a large, complex organization, Nathaniel was given the running of it, and was even allowed to coauthor papers with Rand.  He began to show signs of autocratic messianism himself.  When, with Ayn’s blessing, Nathaniel married Barbara, Ayn was the bridesmaid, and her husband Frank the best man.  Rand considered Branden the incarnation of her idealized heroes.

    So it’s maybe not surprising that we come to another common messianic characteristic, one that crops up repeatedly: a sense of sexual entitlement.  Though Rand was twenty-five years older than Branden, she thought it was natural that they, the two preeminent thinkers of the twentieth century, should get together.  Branden agreed.  Their spouses put up with it, because that’s what you have to do when you’re married to junior and senior messiahs. The sexual arrangement  lasted only a couple of years, but Rand later wished to resume relations.  Branden put her off with various excuses until 1968, when Rand discovered  he was having a secret affair with the young and beautiful woman who later became his second wife; all hell broke loose.

    Rand was enraged.  Obviously Branden was not a real objectivist, and obviously he was not worthy of her trust.  He was excommunicated, excised from the group, turned into a nonperson.  Rand never forgave him.  It was not, of course, the end of Branden; he is still around, now in his eighties, the messiah of his own little self-help movement.  (Barbara Branden, another major player in the drama, died only yesterday.)  Nor, of course, was it the end of Rand’s cult.  Her books are still bestsellers, and her organization is still with us in the form of the Ayn Rand Institute, her lasting effect on the libertarian movement and, heaven help us, her disciple Alan Greenspan, whose efforts to run the Fed by Randian principles did not have perhaps the happiest of outcomes.  Perhaps it is dangerous in general to turn a messianic theory into actual practice.

    One final word on Rand, an interesting link with the messianic pattern.  In her own special way, she had a millenarian, apocalyptic agenda.  In Atlas Shrugged, Rand’s heroes, the productive laissez-faire capitalists, get tired of being exploited by the parasites, and go on strike.  That is, they go into hiding in a little enclave in the mountains, where they can all be happy laissez-faire capitalists together—meantime the outside world, deprived of their creative and heroic influence, slides into chaos and Armageddon.  That message became stronger and stronger as Rand aged: the urgent message that her philosophy of objectivism was the world’s only hope of salvation, the only way that twentieth-century messianic woes could be followed by a shining objectivist utopia.

    galts_gulch

    Note: with help from the Tea Party and affiliates, Atlas Shrugged is being turned into a monumentally dreadful trilogy of movies.  Alas, it appears that plans to shoot Part 3 as a musical were abandoned.  The charming Christmas tree ornaments shown at the top of this post are available from the movie’s website.

    Category: Secularism

    Tags:

    Article by: Rebecca Bradley

    15 comments

    1. Read The Fountainhead back in my twenties and enjoyed it and the movie. I’ve reread it a couple of times since. Atlas Shrugged was garbage and I could never finish it. But, I never bought into Rand’s philosophy and I have to much of an altruistic personality, I guess. Rand’s resurgence I find unbelievable but there it is.

      1. To be honest, the only fiction of hers I’ve read in full is Anthem, in my teens, as part of a long binge on apocalyptic/dystopic sf, and it impressed me mightily then. But, though I’ve made several attempts to get into The Fountainhead, and once made it nearly 400 pages into Atlas Shrugged, I think I’m fated never to finish them. And her resurgence? Bizarre.

        1. Recognising cult literature was a survival skill in the 1970s, which made my encounter with Rand an exceedingly brief one. I could not regard her as anything more than an amusing polemicist. That grown-up people take her seriously remains dismaying to me.

          Bad history of philosophy will often identify a First Great Corruptor. For Rand, bizarrely, it is Kant. A first-year student in philosophy should see through “Objectivism” in short order.

    2. Excellent write-up!

      This post is bound to arouse some defensiveness from the libertarian wing of the skeptic movement, but I think it is spot on. I’ve actually seen Objectivist groupthink firsthand, when I was still young and individualist at the University of New Mexico, and those were much lower stakes. Any system that aspires to systematic orthodoxy of belief is bound to run into these problems.

      1. It certainly seems so. And particularly ironic when groupthink comes out of a system that overtly prizes individual thought. Were you tempted at all, Damion? .

    3. We’ll have words later on. But for the moment, two points>

      1) She repeatedly said that the point of “Atlas Shrugged” was to prevent it from coming to pass. She had, in other words, the exact opposite of a millenarian intention.

      2) Alan Greenspan hasn’t been an Objectivist for a long, long time, and his actions have for decades been both condemned by other Objectivists, and by his own, younger writings.

      To the rest of this, as I say we’ll have words, but for the moment let me note something I have noticed for a while now. Whenever someone starts with “she seems to be saying” it invariably means, “I’m not going to say what she actually said because I’d have more trouble arguing with that.” Minor example, in Atlas Shrugged she predicted that the increase in the power of the state would not lead to true socialism, but a corrupt alliance between bureaucrats and politicians answerable to no one and incompetent and venal businessmen buying their influence – to the benefit of absolutely no one except the people running the racket. What a crazy idea, huh?

      1. 1) The millenarian script can vary in its details. Like many cult ideologues who claim an exclusive hold on truth, Rand took a Manichean good-vs-evil view of mankind’s fate: heeding her warnings and adopting her principles would result in utopia; otherwise, we were headed for apocalypse and the end of civilization. However, setting up a Randian utopia would necessarily involve the destruction of existing social institutions before society could be reconstructed along the “proper” lines—and incidentally, it would imply throwing those she defined as parasites and moochers (who are evil by definition) under the bus. Looks like classic messianic millenarianism to me.
        2) Certainly Greenspan made pragmatic adjustments, and certainly other Objectivists disowned him as insufficiently pure—though some of their criticisms read like sour grapes, some like the kind of sniping and in-fighting that characterized the movement, and some like distancing themselves when things went so embarrassingly awry with the economy. What I find very telling, however, is what Greenspan told a congressional investigation in 2008, with regard to the disasters of deregulation: “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms […] Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.” Sounds pretty Randian to me, and others.

      2. Thanks for raising those points, Prussian! A couple of quick responses:

        1) The millenarian script can vary in its details. Like many cult ideologues who claim an exclusive hold on truth, Rand took a Manichean good-vs-evil view of mankind’s
        fate: heeding her warnings and adopting her principles would result in utopia; otherwise, we were headed for apocalypse and the end of civilization. However,
        setting up a Randian utopia would necessarily involve the destruction of existing
        social institutions before society could be reconstructed along the “proper”
        lines—and incidentally, it would imply throwing those she defined as parasites
        and moochers (who are evil by definition) under the bus. Looks like classic messianic millenarianism to me.

        2) Certainly Greenspan made pragmatic adjustments, and certainly other Objectivists disowned him as insufficiently pure—though some of their criticisms read like sour grapes, some like the kind of sniping and in-fighting that characterized the movement, and some like distancing themselves when things went so embarrassingly awry with the economy. What I find very telling, however, is what Greenspan told a congressional investigation in 2008, with regard to the disasters of
        deregulation: “I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms […] Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.” Sounds pretty Randian to me, and others, eg http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/10/alan-shrugged.

    4. Good read. I think Rand’s a bit like Dave Matthews Band (never dreamed I’d ever type that) In that I can appreciate the work, if not some of the fans.In a recent Guardian piece David Simon said:

      “I think Marx was a much better diagnostician than he was a clinician.”

      I think that can also be said (with no small irony!) of Rand. She was adept at characterising the nature and behaviour of systems pivoted on collectivism and self-sacrifice, perhaps unsurprisingly, as she lived through it. Where I’m less convinced, is her cure for it, but I did enjoy the books in spite of the flaws. It is somewhat unfortunate that she is so consistently straw-manned by some critics and appropriated by movements like the Tea Party. In many of those cases it’s apparent that people are not remotely familiar with her work.

        1. This is something that continues to blow my mind. Rand would have absolutely excoriated The Tea Party, as she tended to do with any movement that didn’t completely adhere to Objectivist principles, or cherry picked from them. For instance, she had little truck with Libertarianism (she mentions it in The Virtue Of Selfishness) considering it flawed as it is political rather than philosophical solution.A lot of open supporters these days are seem pretty accomodationalist, by appearances.

    5. One question I always ask a pontificating Randroid: How much Rearden metal would have ever gotten made without all those hundreds of factory workers?

      1. The Daleks (original 1963 version) had a casing made of something very like Rearden Metal and were powered by something very like Galt’s Motor.

        Just saying.

    6. A belated comment I know, but I keep vaguely meaning to view the film version of The Passion of Ayn Rand, with Helen Mirren in the title role. TV Movie, but there is a DVD.

      One for the “must see” list, surely.

      1. I’ve seen it – not just out of interest, but because I’ll watch ANYTHING with Helen Mirren in it – and it’s pretty good.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *