As a college freshman way back in 1967, I became enamored of the novels and ideas of Ayn Rand. In the decades since, my writing and speaking has been influenced in profound ways by that late philosopher and novelist's fertile mind and artistic sensibilities. I also held positions in various organizations and publications promoting her work.
During those years, I referred to myself by the name she gave to her philosophy. I was an "Objectivist" and I promoted "Objectivism."
But I no longer use those terms in self-description. Nor am I involved in any Objectivist organizations, publications, or "movements." For anyone interested, I'd like to explain precisely why, and where I now stand.
Without getting into complicated specifics, my
essential philosophical ideas have not much changed, as anyone reading my nonfiction or fiction would quickly realize. The Randian influence is deep and unmistakable.
However, my views about the
validity, usefulness, and desirability of a formal movement of "individualists" who are organized in ideological groups and hierarchies, which are run and policed by designated "representatives" or "intellectual heirs" (including self-proclaimed
ones), have changed, and radically. In fact, even during the years I was mired within the
"movement," I argued against any such organizational structures,
as being in contradiction with the substance of individualism. (For
example, if you can find a copy, in a recorded lecture, "Organized
Individualism? Building the Objectivist Community.")
Anyone
who takes seriously the lessons of Rand's novel The Fountainhead would have to reject any such
creature as an "organized Objectivist movement." (For those familiar with the novel: Can you imagine its individualist hero, Howard Roark ,
subjugating himself as a "member" or "follower" or even "student of Objectivism"?) For some years, Ayn Rand allowed such an organized movement to be established to promote her philosophy; it was called the Nathaniel Branden Institute. It later imploded disastrously -- ostensibly because of personal issues between herself and its founder, but actually because of the issue of "intellectual representation."
Rand had designated the eponymous head of NBI as her "intellectual heir and representative," her public spokesman and champion -- the supposed embodiment of her ideas. In practice, that meant he was a professional yes-man, required to perfectly reflect and champion her ideas -- not his own. That inevitably proved to be untenable: A philosophy of individualism cannot be promulgated as a dogma. Yet the nature and structure of an organization aiming to perfectly embody somebody's entire philosophy -- to the letter and without deviation -- mandates and encourages dogmatism.
If you read Rand's own
published statements in the immediate wake of the NBI debacle, you'd see
that she learned that lesson explicitly. She wrote that she always
had been dubious about an "organized movement of Objectivists" and never
wished to be the head of one, let alone forced into the role of trying
to police "misrepresentations" of her philosophy. She also -- again
explicitly -- stated she would never again authorize or endorse any such
Objectivist organization. But she was barely cold in her coffin before a new, self-proclaimed "intellectual heir" (never and nowhere
did she ever designate him as such) declared that, with her death, that
restriction no longer applied. He then created an organization, the Ayn Rand Institute, which essentially mirrored the disastrous approach of NBI.
I
participated for a long time in a different, competing Objectivist organization, one that
positioned itself as hostile to the notion of any intellectual gurus,
hierarchies, and dogmas. But I still found the core problem had not been
effectively addressed -- because it began with the label of the philosophy itself.
Ayn Rand had developed her personal philosophical system and
slapped a label on it, one in which she also declared a proprietary
interest: "Objectivism." This put her admirers in a moral quandary. Were
only those who agreed with Rand's every significant utterance
"Objectivists"? Or could one call himself an "Objectivist" if he agreed
with most of her philosophical essentials, but disagreed with her on
this or that specific application or inference? And if the latter, where, exactly,
did one draw the lines?
Years (and may I say, lives)
have been wasted in an absurd tug-of-war among individuals and organizations over the "moral right" to use Rand's invented label in self-description. People have built their entire self-esteem (and careers)
upon that "Objectivist" title; upon their "loyalty" to specific utterances and positions
of Rand's (and those of her self-appointed, posthumous interpreters); and
upon whether or not particular notions are "essential" to Objectivism.
The determination of what is and isn't "essential" is completely
arbitrary and subjective, ranging from the utterly dogmatic
("Objectivism is everything and only what Rand wrote and said of a
philosophical nature") to the utterly relativistic (e.g., notions by
various self-proclaimed "Objectivists" who equate that term with moral and political views
Rand herself loathed and denounced).
I saw that the basic error of Rand -- as
an advocate of independent judgment and individualism -- had been to
ascribe a label to her personal philosophy (with all its countless
implications), but then try to limit and restrict its "authorized" use by others...unless they
conformed completely to every dotted "i" and crossed "t" of her own
interpretation. Understandably, she imposed these restrictions about use of the label lest others publicly "misrepresent" her and damage her reputation. Yet this put sincere admirers
in an impossible position: either slavishly nod and parrot Rand's every
utterance, or abandon the label "Objectivist." If the former, then being
an "Objectivist" means being a dogmatist -- which contradicts the
individualist epistemological and moral basis of the philosophy. If the latter, though, then
the only real "Objectivists" are those who abandon the label, in order
to preserve their own intellectual independence and moral integrity.
Absurdly, five decades after they first arose, these debates continue to rage throughout the small and insular Objectivist subculture. Nearly a decade ago, I happily abandoned that subculture and its baggage. At
my age, life had become far too short to remain mired in such
pointless and preposterous preoccupations. To what end? Will the "winners" of the rhetorical battles swell their chests with pride that they -- and only they -- are the
"true Objectivists"? Will that have the slightest substantive impact upon
the course of their lives, let alone upon the course of the world outside their skulls?
Finally, from a personal, practical, and professional standpoint, using the shared label also meant having to constantly, publicly disavow a multitude of idiots and
scoundrels masquerading as "Objectivists," and bizarre notions
advanced as "Objectivism." Sadly, that included some of Rand's own private foibles and erroneous ideas. Like the "Scarlet Letter," the label has become a way for
ideological enemies to employ "guilt by association" smears, linking the decent people using it to odious others, and to their dubious views. I have no
time or interest in answering for the private quirks and weird ideas of total
strangers, with whom I would be lumped by a shared, artificial label, but very
little else.
As a principled individualist, I answer only for myself. (And I use the term "principled individualist" purely descriptively, and not capitalized.)
I
cannot tell you how relieved and liberated I have felt for the past decade to be light years
removed from "the Objectivist movement," and from its unproductive distractions. I remain proud of many things I accomplished during my years of involvement in that movement. But I wasted
way, way too much time myopically mired in a silly, rhetorical tug-of-war
over an unimportant label.
So, I no longer use the label "Objectivist." I neither have nor seek any affiliations or involvement with organs of "the Objectivist movement" -- which is "moving"
nowhere, and which is an oxymoron, if you take seriously the point of The Fountainhead. I leave such petty preoccupations to those with far more years left
to fritter away.
If you wish to label me anything, try my name.
Likewise, if you want to argue with my ideas, try arguing with mine -- not Ayn Rand's, or
Leonard Peikoff's, or David Kelley's, or anyone else you care to name.
