Customer Reviews

Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand (Re-Reading the Canon)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

I have no idea what book Mats Landstrom read... but it seems to me that he is criticizing Objectivism, and not saying ANYTHING about this volume. This book has absolutely nothing to do with the cult of Objectivism, and everything to do with intelligent discussion and criticism of Rand's ideas. I don't agree with everything in the book, but it is so provocative and so extraordinary in terms of its diversity and scholarship that I can't recommend it more strongly.

Some browsers might be interested in an open letter that Nathaniel Branden <NathanielBranden@compuserve.com> wrote to Chris Sciabarra concerning this book:

------------------

Dear Everyone, Now that it's in the bookstores (or available through amazon.com), I urge you to buy and read FEMINIST INTERPRETATIONS OF AYN RAND. The collection is fantastically interesting--and important. (Forget the fact that I am one of the contributors; this is not self-serving.) Naturally, one likes some essays more than others, and some of the pieces are anything but friendly to Rand, and that's all right too, because what matters is that the average intellectual level of the pieces is very high--and the editors are to be saluted for assembling this marvelous collection and for taking another step in closing the gap between AR and the academy. I have no words to convey the rush I experienced while reading this book. Those poor souls at ARI do not understand that this book, criticisms of Rand and all, will do more to advance the cause of Rand's work than all their true-believer praise and idiotic adulation. Have fun. I did. And (if anyone cares) you can quote me. Nathaniel

This anthology includes a marvelous variety of perspectives on Rand's philosophy as well as her fiction; to criticize this work based on the all-or-nothing behavior of the ARI or on (mis)perceptions of Rand's "egoism" is to fail to engage the actual subjects of the articles themselves. To address some of the arguments leveled in previous reviews:

This book does not claim to "promote" Rand, nor are its articles written from the perspective of the true believer. To disagree with Rand's Objectivism does nothing to address the contents of the anthology. As a matter of fact, several of the contributors themselves strongly disagree with and/or disapprove of Rand, for various reasons.

The editors do not claim Rand was herself a feminist, although the essays provide a framework for interpreting Rand from a feminist perspective. Further, Rand's self-identification as NOT a feminist does not mean that there is nothing in her work that can be applied to feminism, or from which feminism might benefit.

And to claim that the volume is trying to "cash in" on Rand's name is to ignore the entire scope of literary, philosophical, cultural, psychoanalytic, and feminist criticism. The work of the literary critic, for example, involves interpreting a text from a new perspective in order to suggest meanings or structures, to uncover parallels or contradictions, and to struggle with conceptual knots found in the text. One reading will differ from another, opening up different aspects of the text that may or may not have anything to do with the author; once a book has been written, anyone who reads it is free to interpret it as he or she sees fit. For the most part, the contributors here provide in-depth scholarly analyses and plenty of documentation to support their theses. By placing Rand in a sealed box, refusing to allow her work to be interpreted and discovered, and refusing to allow new minds to draw new conclusions from her stated premises, her devoted followers only guarrantee the death of Rand's ideas.

For those interested in current Rand scholarship rather than the repitition of Objectivist mantras, this anthology is superb. If you can't bear to hear any new thoughts on Rand, re-read Atlas Shrugged. If you hate Ayn Rand and think her philosophy is the root of all self-serving capitalist American evil, why the heck are you reading this anthology??? Save your cult-baiting for the Down With Objectivism website.

This anthology is a diverse -- perhaps motley is a better word -- collection somewhat unified by the editors' intention to have its multiple contributors discuss Ayn Rand "in the context of feminism" (pg. 17), with many arguing for their views of how women do or should view the works of Rand. Most contributors are women, with a few men here too. The better essays are by women whose evaluations end up exposing the weaknesses in some of the ill-informed, sloppily-thought-out essays elsewhere in the collection.

Wendy McElroy discusses an Ayn Rand scene that raises cries of disgust: the first sexual encounter between Roark and Dominique in "The Fountainhead." McElroy asks that readers to notice, "as Rand later explains, it was an act Dominique could have ended at any moment". McElroy addresses the accusation that the encounter must be rape because Dominique uses that word in her mind, yet Dominique fantasized "contemptuous flaunting, [so] Dominique would be compelled to use hyperbole. After all, saying 'I've had rough sex ... I've had rough sex' would not produce the same reaction." (pgs. 163-164)

McElroy's essay challenges the view of Susan Brownmiller (elsewhere in the collection) where McElroy writes that the Roark-Dominique scene for Rand "is not rape--it is an ecstatic surrender to the ultimate value in life. For [Brownmiller], it is a symptom of pathology. This difference is the end result of the antagonistic paradigms with which Rand and most contemporary feminists approach sexuality." (pg. 165) As McElroy sums up, "many feminists often ignore a key aspect of Rand's ideal woman: she is the full intellectual, emotional, moral, and political equal of man. Indeed, Rand's heroine is generally the intellectual and moral superior of every man surrounding her except for the one ultimate man who is the ideal." (pg. 166)

This level of analysis and perspective was not achieved by other contributors. The piece by Camille Paglia (from an interview) indicates a reading at just the surface level. Paglia does appreciate that while "Women's studies has been oriented toward rediscovering the mediocre thinker, or the writer who talks about her victimization," an alternative is available from "someone who preaches individualism and independence as Ayn Rand does."

Contributor Loiret-Prunet lacks such intellectual independence. She keeps citing opinions of others: "According to Sciabarra (1995, 236), Rand traced an internal relationship between life and value, ..." (pg. 98). And: "Ronald Merrill (1991) observes: 'As Nathaniel Branden has pointed out, this ancient cliche ..." (pg. 94) She lays out evidence that "Images in three are numerous in the whole book ['We the Living']" (pg. 88) and itemizes some, but opines that the meaning of this, "which may not have deep philosophical significance, might be a subconscious resurgence of Rand's own concerns with triadic synthesis, traces of the molding of her thought, or ironical *clins d'oeil*, or of an instinctive choice by the author of the number three." (pg. 89) Loiret-Prunet doesn't consider that this quantity is the smallest needed for simultaneous comparison and contrast.

This collection contains bizarre, mystical and collectivist perspectives. Contributor Wilt writes about "the heart of the Real," and says that Rand "would not, of course, accept the postmodern contention that 'the individual' is also a mystic construction. For she is *its* priest." (pg. 187) Contributor Michalson writes, "If Cherryl had had Dagny's birth and circumstances, one could easily imagine her running a major business" (pg. 216) though this hardly addresses the differences between the characters which the readers of the novel are shown. In this pronouncement and in one about Cherryl suffering a bad marriage (though Michalson lays blame on "the institution of traditional marriage")(pg. 217), Michaelson does not address that possibility that Rand pinned the blame on bad philosophy and rampant irrationality.

Contributors Presley and Vacker often write for pages at a time without mentioning Ayn Rand (pgs. 124-127, 262-265), and when they do, do so briefly.

The ill-informed remarks here may have the misfortune of being accepted by others and become oft-repeated bromides. Contributor Sheaffer addresses what he assumes to be Ayn Rand's view of women wanting to look up to a man as meaning, "If a woman attains the position of a low-level executive, she forces her man to attain a higher-level one in order to keep her affection. If she becomes an assistant professor, he must attain at least the level of full professor. If she is elected to the House of Representatives, he must become at least a Senator. As soon as he fails to outshine her, he becomes unworthy of hero worship." (pg. 311) He obviously didn't bother to read Rand's "An Answer to Readers" in the March 1967 issue of "The Objectivist," where she wrote that to "equate a man with his achievement is a dangerous bit of superficiality and package-dealing. One loves a man's character, not his achievement; one loves that in his character which made him capable of achieving. And love is not a professional competition."

(The above quotation by Ayn Rand does not appear anywhere in "Feminist Interpretations.")

Contributor Brown likewise goes into a complaint that, in disparaging Women's Lib, "Rand here also defends a system that ... did in fact have laws still denying women equal rights ... and rights over their own bodies." (footnote 11 to pg. 292) Brown makes no mention of Rand's "Of Living Death" (Rand advocating birth control and abortion) or "A Suggestion" ("The Objectivist," February 1969), which was Rand asking her readers to write to legislators in favor of a law allowing abortion.

Contributor Wilt writes, "*The Fountainhead* appeared to instant popular acclaim in 1943 ... She wrote *Atlas Shrugged* over the next fifteen years ..." (pg. 179) Both statements are wrong.

Contributor Barbara Branden knew Ayn Rand and researched her life, yet writes about Rand that "she would write, on her wedding license, under the category of profession: 'Waitress.'" (pg. 34) This isn't what Branden wrote in her 1986 book: it was "Waiter" that appears on the license. (Branden, 1986, pg. 93) I have looked at the document filed among public documents in Los Angeles, and what is typed on it says "Waiter". This is an important distinction, because it being "waiter" supports my suspicion that Rand wrote down or spoke "Writer" but a clerk typed it incorrectly.

If I show disgust about this essay collection, it's because I expect contributors to know what Ayn Rand said about the subjects on which these essayists offer reports on her views.

It is very good to see such interest in Rand, and as a canonical feminist no less. People are getting away from arguing about her ideas and seeking to understand them. There are two sets of concerns with the book. One is that it is reflective of the scholarly groupthink it seeks to avoid. Bloopers such as the claim that Aristotle advocated female subjection ( he wrote at a time when the average husband was 40 and wife was 12) that lack cultural insight are typical, as is the implicit Judeo-Protestant Christian conceit about what marriage should consist of. There is also typically American cultural resistance to Rand's firm rejection of American Anglo-Saxon/Nordic matriarchy, with a pro-macho, pro-hembra sensitivity that is in line with her anti-clerical Iberian Heritage little exlored by Rand Scholars. Rand's point is that being a strong female who is yet admiringly passive to her decisive man is not only valid but ennobling, though it may not be for everyone. She completely rejects the one emotional attitude fits all view now current in culture and law, and in understanding Rand there is no way around this. Rand once stated to me that, emotionally, her heart was at times more Latin American than not, and this is reflected in her characters such as Anconia. This useful book captures the current spectrum--and competence-- of American Scholarly Opinion.

I'm a contributor to this anthology. This book covers a lot of new ground, bringing together people and perspectives all over the map, from different disciplines and backgrounds, and even three continents. Few things provide a more fruitful and explosive combination than Ayn Rand and feminism. While most contributors to the book are feminists, at least one, maybe two are anti-feminist (depending on how one would classify Camille Paglia). Most contributors are positive to Rand, in the sense that they/we feel that Rand contributed a lot of value (and that more value can be gained by engaging Rand and feminism with each other), but not in the sense of uncritical idolatry. Rand provokes a lot of polarized response: idolatry or condemnation. What Rand needs is a more balanced and scholarly treatment, and engagement with other thinkers and traditions in intellectual history, and this volume does provide that. Feminism has individualist and collectivist wings, and the collectivist wings have been too dominating recently; engaging with Rand can lead to a revival of individualist feminism. In my own contribution, entitled _The Female Hero: A Randian-Feminist Synthesis_, (ifi.uio.no/~thomas/po/female-hero.html) I apply and extend Rand's conception of heroism to women, leading towards a new radical individualist feminism which is interestingly also an ancient vision of female strength and power. Thus I compare and combine Rand with myths of Amazons, and writers who explore these ancient images of power, writers like Merlin Stone, Barbara Walker and Riane Eisler and scholarly accounts of ancient goddesses and heroines. I also discuss androgyny and postandrogyny, and non-patriarchal sexualities. My article is available on my web site. I would also recommend the web site of Chris Sciabarra (co-editor of the book), where you can find a subsite about the book, which includes highlights from reviews and discussions of the book, including the archives of a structured online seminar going through all the articles of the entire book.

Rand's morphing in a feminist is the entire object of the book; hence the new term "Randian-Feminism." In "Looking Back," the essay "Ayn Rand: The Reluctant Feminist" is a nice piece of misinformation, since Rand was not a reluctant feminist. "Feminist Rereadings of Rand's Fiction" is a tiresome attempt to squeeze meanings out of scenes and characters of Rand's books that she mostly never meant. This is accomplished with a huge amount of psychobabble, qualifying it for the psychobabble award of the decade. They pedantically slice many of Rand's phrases, finding links between anything and everything in their content, however irrelevant, then assemble these into a new set of "meanings." They are like monkeys with scissors, cutting up a Rembrandt, and turning it into a Jackson Pollock. The last part, "Toward a Randian Feminism?" consists of views on Rand's feminist possibilities. Again, through pure psychobabble and distortion, various writers bend and stretch Rand into a ridiculous caricature feminist - even a camp feminist, thanks very much. This lame attempt to morph Rand into a feminist won't work in the end - like graffiti on her tombstone, it will eventually wash off.

Like any great artist, Ayn Rand has her share of people who are trying to cash in on her success. This book is a shining example of that. If you want to read about Ayn Rand then read her books. If you want to read about Ayn Rand's views on feminism then read Return of the Primitive. This book has no claim to fame other than the two words, Ayn Rand, printed on its cover. This is not Ayn Rand.

The following of Ayn Rand is a not a "cult." As rational people, we should be able to draw the distinction. About this book: while it is certainly interesting, Rand was never a feminist. Though the authors try, its a stretch. Nevertheless, its good reading.

Nathaniel Branden writes in his review: "...this book, criticisms of Rand and all, will do more to advance the cause of Rand's work than all their (actual Objectivists) true-believer praise and idiotic adulation."

Branden should review some of his own writings about making groundless, arbitrary assertions. Just exactly why or how is such a book superior in "advancing the cause"? As AR would have said: "No answer is given".

Secondly - anyone familiar with the 'personal history' of AR and Branden should find his use of the term "idiotic adulation" to be layered with irony. You couldn't find a more idiotic way to express 'adulation' for someone who is in the role of your mentor then ...well ... you know.

Sorry about that - but it had to be said.

Sciabarra is pretty obviously not too bright, and no comparison can be made between such a so-called 'scholar' and the truly educated and intelligent "poor souls at ARI".

Just another non-intellectual book on Ayn Rand that will be forgotten by the time Objectivism really takes hold.