Return to Reflecting on the Ayn Rand Centenary, Part I
Re: Quantity v. Quality
(#51846)
by Robert L. Campbell on January 30, 2005 at 5:18 PM
by Robert L. Campbell on January 30, 2005 at 5:18 PM
Jonathan,
The Ayn Rand Institute and The Objectivist Center maintain Randian publishing houses. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is published by a libertarian publishing house--if you want to call it anything so grand. But most of the items that Chris mentions in his entry were published by outfits that are neither Randian nor libertarian.
Nor has there been any kind of recent turn toward philosophical questions among Randians. If anything, for a couple of generations there has been an overconcentration on philosophy among young intellectuals influenced by Rand. It goes all the way back to the 1960s.
It's still quite difficult to get young Randians interested in psychology as a discipline (or in any of the other social sciences, except economics). They see Objectivism as a philosophical system, first and foremost.
Robert Campbell
The Ayn Rand Institute and The Objectivist Center maintain Randian publishing houses. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies is published by a libertarian publishing house--if you want to call it anything so grand. But most of the items that Chris mentions in his entry were published by outfits that are neither Randian nor libertarian.
Nor has there been any kind of recent turn toward philosophical questions among Randians. If anything, for a couple of generations there has been an overconcentration on philosophy among young intellectuals influenced by Rand. It goes all the way back to the 1960s.
It's still quite difficult to get young Randians interested in psychology as a discipline (or in any of the other social sciences, except economics). They see Objectivism as a philosophical system, first and foremost.
Robert Campbell
Re: Quantity v. Quality
(#51848)
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on January 30, 2005 at 5:55 PM
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on January 30, 2005 at 5:55 PM
I appreciate your concerns, Jonathan. I think one of the keys is that material on Rand is making its way into scholarly encyclopedias and textbooks across disciplines---from philosophy to sociology to economics to political theory. And even those who are critical of Rand are joining the formal philosophical discussion. For example, in our own pages in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, several high-profile left-wing critics have published respectful pieces on Rand: Bill Martin, National Book Critics Circle Award finalist Gene Bell-Villada, and even continental philosopher Slavoj Zizek. (Zizek includes a discussion of Rand in his book, The Abyss of Freedom, where he argues that Rand's character, Howard Roark, is a portrait of genuine human "authenticity.")
I think this is the kind of activity in which we've seen an increase.
Still, it would be a mistake to suggest that there is no resistance to Rand's ideas. I suspect that this might be an outgrowth of several factors: 1) her status as a "novelist"; 2) her status as a woman in a predominantly male field; and 3) her status as a proponent of capitalism. It would be difficult to prove that these are the reasons for Rand's continued marginalization in some quarters, but to suggest that the marginalization comes because Rand has been "discredited" as a philosopher (as Risen states) is absurd. I say this because in order to be "discredited," one must first be discussed, and that formal academic discussion is still in its infancy.
I think this is the kind of activity in which we've seen an increase.
Still, it would be a mistake to suggest that there is no resistance to Rand's ideas. I suspect that this might be an outgrowth of several factors: 1) her status as a "novelist"; 2) her status as a woman in a predominantly male field; and 3) her status as a proponent of capitalism. It would be difficult to prove that these are the reasons for Rand's continued marginalization in some quarters, but to suggest that the marginalization comes because Rand has been "discredited" as a philosopher (as Risen states) is absurd. I say this because in order to be "discredited," one must first be discussed, and that formal academic discussion is still in its infancy.
Re: Quantity v. Quality
(#51851)
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on January 30, 2005 at 5:59 PM
by Chris Matthew Sciabarra on January 30, 2005 at 5:59 PM
Oh, one other thing: The academic studies of Rand's work are coming from non-"Randian" publishing sources: Pennsylvania State University Press, Open Court Press, Rowman & Littlefield, Wadsworth, and so forth. Granted, we are a few "Cambridge Companions" short... but, as I said, the scholarly industry on Rand is still in its infancy. Let's check back here in 20 years. :)
Re: Quantity v. Quality
(#51949)
by Roderick T. Long on January 31, 2005 at 1:33 PM
by Roderick T. Long on January 31, 2005 at 1:33 PM
I would add that sections on or brief discusisons of Rand are now frequently offered in introductory ethics textbooks. (I know because in my position I get loads of intro textbooks sent to me for free.)
Admittedly, the version of Rand's ideas that these textbooks present is usually a hopelessly crude caricature. (See, e.g., my grumbling here.) But then, the version of Aristotle's, Kant's, or Mill's ideas that such books present tends to be a crude caricature also, so there's parity of a sort.
Admittedly, the version of Rand's ideas that these textbooks present is usually a hopelessly crude caricature. (See, e.g., my grumbling here.) But then, the version of Aristotle's, Kant's, or Mill's ideas that such books present tends to be a crude caricature also, so there's parity of a sort.
Re: Quantity v. Quality
(#51872)
by Jason Kuznicki on January 30, 2005 at 9:32 PM
by Jason Kuznicki on January 30, 2005 at 9:32 PM
You said it, Johnathan. What Objectivist theories of history I have seen are either absurd or obviously derivative of other historiographic traditions. Perhaps I'll attempt a "Randian theory of history" post sometime. I'm not truly an Objectivist, but I do share a great many of their premises and values.
Re: Quantity v. Quality
(#51873)
by Jason Kuznicki on January 30, 2005 at 9:33 PM
by Jason Kuznicki on January 30, 2005 at 9:33 PM
Err... I guess it was Robert talking about Objectivists not entering the social sciences. That's what I was referencing.
Re: Quantity v. Quality
(#51963)
by Robert L. Campbell on January 31, 2005 at 3:18 PM
by Robert L. Campbell on January 31, 2005 at 3:18 PM
Jason,
The only historians I can think of who have been strongly influenced by Rand are Robert Hessen and David Mayer.
One prominent strain in Randian thinking about history insists that the prevailing philosophical ideas during some historical period determine just about everything else. Some of Leonard Peikoff's writings provide an extreme example, but there's plenty in Rand's text that they can draw on for support.
Robert Campbell
The only historians I can think of who have been strongly influenced by Rand are Robert Hessen and David Mayer.
One prominent strain in Randian thinking about history insists that the prevailing philosophical ideas during some historical period determine just about everything else. Some of Leonard Peikoff's writings provide an extreme example, but there's plenty in Rand's text that they can draw on for support.
Robert Campbell
Re: Quantity v. Quality
(#51989)
by Jonathan Dresner on January 31, 2005 at 9:51 PM
by Jonathan Dresner on January 31, 2005 at 9:51 PM
Sounds orthodox Hegelian. How does historical change occur?
Re: Quantity v. Quality
(#52080)
by Robert L. Campbell on February 1, 2005 at 9:28 PM
by Robert L. Campbell on February 1, 2005 at 9:28 PM
The ties to Hegel are very clear in the writings of Rand's official #1 disciple, Leonard Peikoff. (Despite the fact that orthodox Objectivists froth at the mere
mention of dialectics...)
In Rand's version there's more scope for individual initiative, both well and ill-intentioned, as a source of historical change than seems to have been the case with Hegel.
mention of dialectics...)
In Rand's version there's more scope for individual initiative, both well and ill-intentioned, as a source of historical change than seems to have been the case with Hegel.
by Jonathan Dresner on January 30, 2005 at 4:42 PM