Any Rand

[Michael Kenny]

>From: jbor <jbor at bigpond.com>
>To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: Any Rand
>Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 23:00:20 +1100
>
> > on 22/10/02 1:29 PM, Michael Kenny at mikenny79 at hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> From: jbor
> >> To:
> >> Subject: Re: Any Rand
> >> Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 08:18:40 +1100
> >>
> >> In the polemic in which she argues that racism is "the lowest, most 
>crudely
> >> primitive form of collectivism" she still manages to describe the 
>"Negro
> >> leaders" as racists and the civil rights bill of 1964 as an "absurdly 
>evil
> >> policy". ('Racism', September 1963, in _The Virtue of Selfishness_, pp.
> >> 126-134)
> > But you've just cut out a little bit of what she said to make it sound 
>like
> > she's a racist.  I found excerpts of this essay online.  Assuming the
> > quotations are uncorrupted, here's a fuller context:
> >
> > "That absurdly evil policy is destroying the moral base of the Negroes' 
>fight.
> > Their case rested on the principle of individual rights. If they demand 
>the
> > violation of the rights of others, they negate and forfeit their own. 
>Then the
> > same answer applies to them as to the Southern racists: there can be no 
>such
> > thing as the 'right' of some men to violate the rights of
> > others...............
> >
> > It is proper to forbid all discrimination in government-owned facilities 
>and
> > establishments: the government has no right to discriminate against any
> > citizens. And by the very same principle, the government has no right to
> > discriminate FOR some citizens at the expense of others. It has no right 
>to
> > violate the right of private property by forbidding discrimination in
> > privately owned establishments.
> >
> > No man, neither Negro nor white, has any claim to the property of 
>another man.
> > A man's rights are not violated by a private individual's refusal to 
>deal with
> > him. Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible 
>doctrine--but
> > doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law. Just as we have to 
>protect
> > a communist's freedom of speech, even thoough his doctrines are evil, so 
>we
> > have to protect a racist's right to the use and disposal of his own 
>property.
> > Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue--and can be fought only 
>by
> > private means, such as economic boycott or social 
>ostracism.............."
>
>Yes, her argument in this particular tract is that initiatives for positive
>discrimination that seek to redress those social and economic disadvantages
>resulting directly from institutional racism are exactly the same as the
>institutional racism itself. They aren't. To reach such a conclusion - and
>the essay does end up as a polemic against the US civil rights movement -
>she demonstrates what I consider to be a wilful misunderstanding of both 
>the
>causes and the effects of racism.

I disagree with you on this myself.  I think racial preferences today 
overlook the causes and effects of racism.  Whenever you give one group more 
priveleges than another, white or black or whatever, you create racial 
animosity.  It doesn't help black people today when people think "So-and-so 
got that job because he or she is black, or a woman."  When you earn 
something in this society as a black person, you might frequently find that 
people automatically think you didn't earn it, but got your position based 
on some consideration of your race.  I don't think anyone should make that 
assumption about anyone groundlessly, but unfortunately, it happens.  That 
doesn't help minorities at all.  It also doesn't help anyone, be you a 
trust-funder who got into a university because of your family name, or a 
minority student who got in based on racial considerations, if you can't 
keep up with the other students who earned their way into the school based 
on their academic performance.

> >> Throughout her polemical writings she continually labels non-Western
> >> societies and cultural manifestations as "primitive" and "savage".
> >
> > But theses labels haven't been exclusive to non-Western cultures.  She 
>also
> > levels those names, or names like them, at Western culture before the
> > industrial revolution, the rise of capitalism, and other events she 
>thought
> > were good.  Even still, she has plenty of complaints about Western 
>culture,
> > and certain invidividuals within who she sees as carrying on in 
>'primitive'
> > ways.
>
>She constantly invokes this dichotomy of the "primitive" and "savage" 
>versus
>the "civilised" and "rational". It's the dichotomy she sets up which 
>derives
>from suprematist, or racist, ideology, regardless of who she applies it to.

That doesn't make any sense.  How can she be racist if she isn't basing her 
judgment of what's rational or civilized (these two terms likely mean the 
same thing to Ayn Rand) on race?

>
> >> Sometimes
> >> she is merely condescending: "Today, when the influence of Western
> >> civilization is breaking up the static, tradition-bound culture of 
>Japan,
> >> young Japanese composers are doing talented work in the Western style 
>of
> >> music." But sometimes her "analyses" reveal a deeply-ingrained cultural
> >> suprematism, no matter how much she disguises it behind babble about 
>"man's
> >> psycho-epistemological method of functioning":
> >>
> >> The connection of music to man's cognitive faculty is supported by the
> >> fact that certain kinds of music have a paralyzing, narcotic effect on
> >> man's mind. They induce a state of trance-like stupor, a loss of 
>context
> >> of volition, of self-awareness. Primitive music and most Oriental music
> >> fall into this category. The enjoyment of such music is the opposite of
> >> the emotional state a Western man would call enjoyment ....
> >> The deadly monotony of primitive music - the endless repetition of a
> >> few notes and of a rhythmic pattern that beats against the brain with
> >> the regularity of the ancient torture of water drops falling on a man's
> >> skull - paralyzes cognitive processes, obliterates awareness and
> >> disintegrates the mind. ... ('Art and Cognition' 1971, _The Romantic
> >> Manifesto_, pp. 45-79)
> > She's giving reasons for why she thinks certain kinds of music are 
>detrimental
> > to thinking.  I don't think it's racist to think that tribal music has a
> > hypnotic effect on a person's mind, and that this does not help someone 
>focus.
> > I've certainly spaced out to tribal-sounding music.  I don't know if 
>this is
> > bad all the time, or that it doesn't have some useful effects.  It's 
>certainly
> > relaxing, which can be useful.
>
>Her point is that this sort of music is culturally inferior.

Because she thinks it discourages thinking, not because of the color of 
someone's skin.

>The inference
>is that those who compose, perform and/or enjoy this type of music are also
>inferior.

Because they are avoiding thinking, not because of the color of their skin.

>She's anti-hippie, anti-mysticism, anti-abstract art and
>anti-"Dionysian" as well, of course, but all of her aesthetic prejudices 
>are
>based on a notion of the inherent superiority of Western culture and
>society, of "rationalism".

But Western culture contains hippies, mysticism, and abstract art.  I won't 
disagree that Rand liked great Western thinkers like Aristotle, but she also 
lauded mathematics, (algebra came from Arabs).  I don't think she thought 
there was some racial superiority of western people.  She's explicit about 
that in her reference to the black genius or the German moron.  She's also 
critical of things that sprang from Western culture, like communism and the 
pseudo-scientific racism of the nineteenth century.  Western culture has 
contained some of the most beneficial and also some of the most destructive 
ideas that have ever been unleashed on mankind (certainly a Pynchonian 
theme).

> >> I've got a hazy recollection that one of the most vilified characters 
>in
> >> _Atlas Shrugged_ is African-American, and one of the most pathetic is
> >> Jewish, though I could be misremembering.
> > Could be.  I haven't read the book.  But in the context of this 
>quotation
> > cited below, I think it would be unfair to think Rand was saying "All 
>blacks
> > or all Jews are like this, because I portrayed one character of that 
>group as
> > a dumb or immoral person."
>
>The impression I have is that these were the only characters from those
>ethnic backgrounds in the book, or in any of her books. I could be mistaken
>on this, however ....
>
>Perhaps "rabid" was the wrong adjective, though I do find her cultural
>prejudices, and the way she trumpets them, quite deplorable. Perhaps
>"latent" is the more apt term.

I thought of something and wanted to check it out: Rand's real name was 
Alissa Rosenbaum and she came from a Russian Jewish family.  That doesn't 
mean she wasn't anti-semetic, but you'd have to make the difficult case that 
she's a self-loathing Jew.

--Mike


_________________________________________________________________
Choose an Internet access plan right for you -- try MSN! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp