Ayn Rand's works generally do not get a lot of attention unless it is in more conservative and liberal circles, with her philosophy of Objectivism [1] mostly receiving ridicule when covered by popular media. Although video games like the Bioshock series are heavily inspired by her later book 'Atlas Shrugged', these revel in showing off just how much Objectivism is wrong and cannot work in real life.
Admittedly, I was among those who thought like that. What is after all more selfish than putting one's own happiness over that of others? What monster wouldn't put altruism and selflessness over one's own self-worth and ego?
At the recommendation of a lawyer friend of mine, I got a copy of The Fountainhead [2], her 1943 novel. After a rough start, I managed to finish the book yesterday and had some time to collect my thoughts on it. Note that in this review I will heavily spoil this 77-year old book, so be forewarned.
At the core of the book's story are the twin stories of two young architects, as they make their way into society. One - Peter Keating - is eager and glad to please. The other - Howard Roark - is self-assured and prefers to go his own way. One follows whatever building style is demanded without putting his own stamp on anything. The other desires only to follow his own style, refusing to ever compromise on his vision.
For most of the book's story, it is Peter who seems to be doing the best, as he gets nearly every commission. Though what Peter knows - but doesn't want to admit to - this is because of two other characters who are merely using Peter for their own goals. There is Ellsworth Toohey, who seeks only power over others, and who promotes Peter over Howard when folk come to him for advice on picking an architect for a new commission. There is also Dominique, whose motive in getting commissions to Peter instead of Howard is one of love. Love for Howard, that is.
I must admit that when I started reading this book, I was biased against it. I expected to dislike it, to see the relentless egoism and selfishness dripping from every page and being glorified. As I finished chapter after chapter I did not see any of this. Instead I got a careful building up of the US architectural world of the 1930s, and the struggles of two young men as they find their place in this highly traditional and unforgiving world. Both Peter and Howard, as well as the other main characters are portrayed in a fashion that is decidedly human. None of them feel like cardboard cut-outs placed there to represent some kind of stereotypical concept.
The story has many shades of grey in it, and as the story progresses, you aren't really sure who to root for. Peter, maybe? He seems nice. Howard feels so arrogant, so maybe not him. Dominique is just an ice princess, so what can one expect from her? Then, as another part completes and the story progresses through the seven year timespan plus flashbacks to characters' childhoods, it becomes so obvious which character is the one to sympathise with.
At this point the character of the publisher Gail Wynand has been added as well, as a newspaper mogul who has risen up from a meagre existence in the ghettoes of New York (Hell's Kitchen). At first glance he seems like he has managed to escape this world, to escape judgement of society and reach sweet freedom. By bouncing Howard Roark's character off these characters, against the background of the struggle around commissions and Howard's uncompromising attitude towards bringing his vision and only his vision to life, we learn more and more about Howard's character, even though he is set up to be as hard to read as possible at the beginning.
By the time the climax rolls around in the final chapters of the book, it feels as though one can finally truly understand the character of Howard Roark. While the character of Peter was easy enough to understand, Roark's character is of such depth and integrity that it really did take an entire book to see most aspects of it and to grasp his motivations. Roark was the only person who was morally and ethically integer, while Keating and Wynand had compromised themselves, setting themselves up for failure once the winds of fortune changed direction.
At the center of it all is the fundamental truth that a brain is an attribute of an individual. There is no collective brain, and thus no thought is ever collectively thought. Instead a thought, an idea or concept is produced by one individual, and can be transformed or expanded upon by other individuals. A creator doesn't create because they are told to do so, but because they want to. They invent, draw, compose and design because it is in their nature. They provide that which ultimately makes society.
Creators by definition place themselves before others, as otherwise they cannot create. If they were to sacrifice themselves for others, they could no longer create. Second-handers are those who praise the concepts of self-sacrifice, of altruism and sacrificing one's happiness and freedom for some goal. Altruism is thereby a kind of slavery, or masochism. It is to surrender oneself to something higher, like society, or religion. It means worshipping or idolising. It means living for someone or something other than oneself.
In essence altruism and self-sacrifice are the exact opposites of self-acceptance and of being allowed to exist and create. Creators are sacrificed on the altar of altruism.
One does have to wonder about how concepts like altruism and self-sacrifice are considered to be such important and self-evident concepts in society, when those who are in charge display neither characteristic. When politicians, sport and music idols can make in a week what the average person working a regular job makes in more than twenty years of backbreaking work, yet the latter are still being asked on TV and in radio spots to be 'altruistic' and donate part of their meagre income to some abstract goal like 'helping the poor', then that should evoke some strong feelings in any reasonable person.
Even though I am the first person to admit that we have to share in some respects for a healthy society, such as with details like health care and schooling, I find myself grudgingly agreeing with aspects of Ayn Rand's arguments. Ideally, a society would have no distinction between individuals in terms of wealth. Those who wish to create can freely do so. There would be no concept of 'jobs', as those who want to create will do so without being forced to do so. There are those who want to run a restaurant or a shop because it appeals to them. Others will still want to play sports, or draw or sculpt even if the only reward they get out of it is to see their vision become reality.
One thing which Aynd Rand really protested against is essentially Stalinism (authoritarianism), portrayed by the Ellsworth Toohey character. It is the worst kind of collectivism, where an individual has less say about what they can and cannot do than under an already oppressive system like neo-liberalism. Where neo-liberalism promotes self-exploitation and sacrificing oneself for 'the greater good', Stalinist-style authoritarianism like that in her native Soviet Union takes it that much further. Instead of promoting self-sacrifice, in an authoritarian system such self-sacrifice is demanded at the point of a gun.
Reflecting on this one book and the world contained in it, I can honestly say that it has left a big impression on me. I also feel sorry for casually dismissing Ayn Rand's works before. She truly was a great writer, with a very good, engaging style and immaculate character building. After reading The Fountainhead I will not say that I am a new convert to Objectivism, but I am grateful for having had this in-depth look at the fundamental ideas and concepts behind it.
True to her own philosophy, Ayn Rand did everything she could to be a creator, and it shows.
Maya
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountainhead
2 comments:
Agree or disagree with her, Rand was undeniably a powerful writer.
The problem, as I think we've discussed before, is that her philosophy was so poorly constructed that it's easy for greedy assholes to twist it into a justification for doing as they please. She wasn't trained in philosophy and it showed; she was punching above her weight.
Very true, Venture. That's why perhaps it is a work like The Fountainhead which best shows what she meant, rather than her later, more formal philosophical works.
Makes me want to recommend this book to people even more :)
Post a Comment