Mean bitches who don't shave .

Alternative, politically correct title: Ayn Rand in the 21st century. 

So, I'm currently writing my honours thesis in philosophy. This year has seen me become a vegetarian and a feminist. It has also seen me slowly acquire a burning hatred for a previously, if not loved, liked author - Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand dealt extensively with the theme(s) of individualism and independence as norms of personhood. However, her task was not to interrogate these norms, but rather to promote them. I feel that this ends up amounting to irresponsible valorisation or idealisation of independence/individualism. In the free-market capitalist, industrialised, world what we have essentially done is internalize the notion of the autonomous, powerful, self-interested individual as the foundation for our thinking around the person. But I, along with many other cultural critics, philosophers and feminists (what I mean to say is that this is not an original idea of mine, but one informed by extensive reading on ontology and ethics) think that to regard ‘the person’ outside of the relational framework which makes us human is misguided.

The practices we value deeply such as childrearing, friendship, familial relations are so profoundly DEpendent and based on our historically and culturally ‘’situatedness’’ that to make the norms of personhood rely on transcending this relationality is to dehumanise us. Thinking of the fact of birth brings to focus what it means to be human – finitude, vulnerability, relationality. As human beings we are vulnerable subjects, open to the world and to each other. An ethics inspired by a negation or avoidance of how human life is characterised by dependency relations will only serve to alienate us from our responsibilities towards each other and to ourselves. I think it is foolish to make self-interest the spinning centre of civilization. Not to say that self-interest isn’t real. The issue is rather one of taking responsibility for our habits of self-interest. Self-interest is an ever-present temptation – but I think that that is what it should remain.

I think that the way we pay teachers and nurses reflects our disregard for the values of interdependence and of dependency relations. These care-giving professions, so close to what makes us vulnerable and open to others, are rendered marginal in a society which valorises independence. We need each other. We wouldn’t be people without other people. If the symbolic values we attach to personhood ignores this, then we end up creating a cold, consumerist world for ourselves to inhabit. However, I am not saying that there is some real, objective fact about us. We construct all our facts. But this does not de-legitimize them. Constructs give our world meaning. What I am saying is that we need to start building our constructs on a better foundation than that which Ayn Rand suggests. We need a better starting position, one which takes responsibility for much more than just ourselves. We are amongst each other – much more so now in the globalised, cosmopolitan world. 

So, Objectivism....

Ok, here’s the deal with Objectivism as a philosophy:

Academia generally ignored or rejected her philosophy, but it has been a significant influence among libertarians and American conservatives (Wikipedia). So, to start off with, libertarianism could be summed up as the view that we don’t need a state. It begins with a notion of ‘negative freedom’, which entails that we want freedom for freedom’s sake, and furthermore, to be free is to have nothing impeding your actions. This may be better understood in contrast to ‘positive freedom’, which entails that we want freedom with content – meaning that we are free in so far as we are actually enabled to act – meaning that we often need rules or ‘impediments to our freedom’ to actually enable us to act. Think of a place/piece of the globe where people live, but they live as totally free, autonomous individuals. They have nothing to impede their freedom. But they also have nothing else, because we must devise rules or a kind of state to colour in and give meaning to our freedom. Maybe think of the statement 'you'e free to fly'. So what? I can't fly, even if I am free to. This is what happens when people say 'you can opt out or leave the system any time you want to'. Really? No, not really.

A libertarian wants total free trade between autonomous, rationally self-interested individuals. They want everything privatised, funded by individuals who have banded together via a contractual agreement. If you want a road, build it yourself – there is no state to take your money and use it for everyone’s benefit. American conservatives, however, work with the notion of government, but they want it to be as small as possible. No regulation, no interference. Just total freedom.

So, I think libertarianism is bullshit. It’s the basis for free-market capitalism, which I also have some serious misgivings about.

So there you have a better idea of the philosophy Ayn Rand promotes. An ethics based on self-interest. So cold. So lonely. So patriarchal it actually raises my hackles. The basic philosophy underpinning her whole effort is deeply misguided. She promotes the kind of one-dimensional first-wave feminism that gives feminists a bad name. ‘Look, look! We’re all totally rational and autonomous! Please include us in your definition of personhood?! Also, we're mean bitches who don't shave'