A long rant on Rand

When Ayn Rand presented the completed The Fountainhead to publishers, she was greeted with declarations that it was “too intellectual” or “too controversial” and “would not sell because no audience existed for it”. Eventually, her book was printed because one editor stood up for it – asserting that if his publishing house had no place for the novel, then it had no place for him either.

Does the story sound somewhat familiar?

Ayn Rand’s struggle to get her book published echoes so perfectly the struggle of her protagonist Howard Roark. And like Roark, she eventually succeeded – despite negative press (we must wonder what The Banner would have made of it). The Fountainhead became popular mainly through word of mouth – selling hundreds of thousands of copies. Like Roark, it was through the individual choice of her readers – who saw something in her novel that appealled to them – that Rand was able to continue creating her art in the way she intended. Just like Roark’s commissions:

The story of every commission he received was the same: “I was in New York and I liked the Enright house.” “I saw the Cord Building.” “I saw a picture of that temple they tore down.” It was as if an underground stream flowed through the country and broke out in sudden springs that shot to the surface at random, in unpredictable places. P533

Roark and Rand are not popular because they are populists, like the Peter Keatings of this world. Both of their aesthetics draw not from what people want but what THEY individually believe is best for humanity.

And what is best for humanity? Rand argues that to achieve a rational and emotionally connected view of life, we must reject ethics which are based on an external morality. By placing morality in the hands of religion and the masses, we denigrate the ability of the individual to achieve to their full potential. We must come to appreciate ‘selfishness’ in its positive connotations – as Howard Roark argues, the US was founded on the principle of the individual ‘pursuit of own happiness’.

For this reason, the villain Elswoth Toohey’s socialist ideals are integral to his personality (And here, looking at Toohey’s single-minded effort to destroy any world-view different from his own, “villain” is most definitely the appropriate word). Toohey sees socialism as a way to harness the power of the many to acheive his private desired ends.Toohey manipulates the power of mass thought as a means of acheiving complete power. As he tells Peter Keating “It’s the soul Peter, the soul” that must be controlled. One way of acheiving this: “Make man feel small. Make him feel guilty. Kill his aspiration and his integrity... Tell men that altruism is the ideal” (p665). Once every individual realises that they will never acheive true altruism, they will become highly aware of their “unworthiness” and obey the few powerful men who will create and manipulate all (Toohey flatters himself that he is one of these men). Yet although he sees himself as a ruler of the masses, Toohey is, in his own words “selfless” – he too must remain at the disposal of others, his one purpose to “keep you [the masses under his control] contented. To lie, to flatter you, to praise you, to inflate your vanity. To make speeches about the people and the common good”. (p668)

Is Ellsworth right? Can the social changes of the twentieth century (and what we’ve seen of the 21^st) be summed up under the term “collectivism”?

I suppose they can. Socialism, communism, fascism, nationalism, totalitarianism, religious movements, the welfare state. These are the political philosophies that have shaped the last 150 years of our history, and each one of them (to differing extents) is based on development “for the social good”. But does this mean, as Toohey hypothesises, that “Man has no rights”? I don’t think so.This is where I find Rand’s position highly problematic. Yes – collectivism can restrict freedom of speech, thought and action. A recent song by brit-pop act The Kaiser Cheifs makes the same arguement as Toohey regarding collectivism with the chorus “We are the angry mob, we read the paper every day. We like what we like, we hate what we hate, but we’re also easily swayed.”

Are the masses so ‘easily swayed’ as to give away all rights? Some might argue, in the current ‘war on terror’, individual rights ARE being eroded in deference to ‘the greater social good’ (and don’t get me started on definitions of the social good). But come on Rand. You can’t really expect us to give up on social collectivities. In a world where the individual reigns supreme, what happens to those of us that AREN’T Howard Roarks or Ayn Rands, have no kind of defining brilliance and in a world of meritocracy are pushed aside? Rather than losing rights under collectivity, most of us NEED some kind of group identity to acheive any kind of recognition in this world.

I’m not entirely disagreeing with Rand here, as I see my own country every day influenced by terribly biased and manipulative media sources and swayed into quite frightening mass hysterics reasonably often (John Laws, Today Tonight et al – I’m looking at you...). But surely we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, as Rand seems to advocate... Can’t we ever agree on a common good?

* I would just like to note that I am pro-union and therefore quite likely to be a communist. Please therefore disregard all the above as propoganda.

* I would also like to note that, regardless of its political philosophy, I regard The Fountainhead one of the greatest pieces of fiction ever written