Ayn Rand is a big deal to some. After reading some of her work, I understand why. Her general philosophies are known as Objectivism and they are alluring to most because it places a high value on individualism and creativity within a capitalist society. Unfortunately like most general social theories, it leaves a lot to actual application while tending to be misused and misunderstood my many who speak its virtues (which is happening a lot lately thanks to the Tea Party).
In Rand’s two most accepted works (Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged), she uses the conventions of the then present society to illustrate her points while creating the foundation of her philosophy. Fountainhead is more of a metaphor story that seems to focus on the general areas of architecture, newsprint, and intelligentsia. Atlas Shrugged takes on industrial and political circles with a more overt reference to the underlying philosophical ideas of Rand.
Both books are greatly detailed stories with effective illustrations of how society can be a discouragement to truly valuable and creative individuals. While it may be fiction, I’m pretty sure there is a little more realism then most would like to admit exists in a supposedly free society.
Enough back story. My major problem with Objectivism is that strongly aligns itself with Laissez-faire economic theory. I would love it if humankind were moral enough to run businesses and government in a manner that needs no regulation. The truth is that it’s not even remotely possible except in small doses. The greedy, hoarding nature of mankind always ruins the good intentions of most social theories.
My next two problems with Objectivism are semi related. Objectivism was championed by an author (not an economist or social scientist) and it was created in a manner overly focusing on the trappings of society as it was in the first half of the 20th century.
By Rand being more of an author and not a social scientist or economist, her illustrations and foundations are too specific. By being so specific, there is less room for error. By being more general and metaphorical and macro economics and issues, there’s more room for interpretation and application in the instances of an increasingly complex society. By taking on the trappings of a society in a static manner, it’s harder to apply to the same society 10 years later (let alone almost a hundred years). This is illustrated in Atlas Shrugged with Reardon Metal and the static electricity engine, technologies that can have a formative effect on society in its related circles. These technological leaps are too specific in how it relates then technology to then life. Technology and the evolution of society went in different ways than Rand’s singular vision accounted for. Without the broad base of a canon in the mold of traditional social science (i.e. books and such), there is this halfcocked scramble to apply Objectivisim to modern times. Scientologists have an easier time applying their half-baked ideas from the science fiction works of Mr. Hubbard.
Fortunately for Rand, there is just enough generalization available to keep her vision alive for decades. There’s even an Ayn Rand Institute (aynrand.org). There seems to be a fundamental flaw with the institute. Much like her general philosophies, a lot of her work is for sale on the site. If you want to read Rand’s thoughts on health care (it’s a pamphlet), you’ve got the pay for the privilege. The whole notion of getting paid for your physical and intellectual pursuits was a major part of Atlas Shrugged and a major part of why so many cling to objectivisim. But on the same site they talk about giving away copies of her book. So you’ve got to pay for a pamphlet, but they’re giving away copies of Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged?
So anyway, that’s just my little rant on something that could go on much longer. It really got me thinking about some things that had been fading in the the back of my mind. I’ll probably read the books again, because there is some value to the thought evoking properties of the theory in general. I just don’t think Rand’s stances are that objective.