{"id":529,"date":"2012-09-08T08:07:33","date_gmt":"2012-09-08T08:07:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/?p=529"},"modified":"2012-09-09T05:23:44","modified_gmt":"2012-09-09T05:23:44","slug":"ayn-rand-non-atomistic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/blog\/2012\/09\/ayn-rand-non-atomistic\/","title":{"rendered":"Ayn Rand, Non-Atomistic Individualism, and the Dangers of Communitarianism – Article by G. Stolyarov II"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"The<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
G. Stolyarov II<\/big><\/big><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
September 8, 2012<\/big><\/strong><\/span><\/div>\n
Recommend this page<\/a>.<\/strong><\/div>\n
******************************<\/div>\n
\n

James Joseph argues in \u201cAyn Rand\u2019s Paradox<\/a>\u201d that Rand\u2019s \u201cdefense of individual freedom provides a self-defeating apologia for the American welfare state.\u201d Mr. Joseph\u2019s essay takes the communitarian view that, without the bulwark of \u201cnatural community\u201d (including \u201cshared duties\u201d or \u201cnatural duties and obligations\u201d or \u201cclaims from direct community\u201d), the individual becomes increasingly reliant on government for every benefit in life.<\/p>\n

Yet Mr. Joseph\u2019s analysis portrays Ayn Rand as espousing a view that no serious thinker has ever held \u2013 the canard of atomistic individualism, which is often used by communitarians against those who do not think that communities can exist as superior entities apart from and greater than the individuals who constitute them. Mr. Joseph believes that \u201cIn fact, American statism\u2019s apologia is the individual freedom so touted by Ayn Rand, complete with her denial of the claims of the community on the individual. One need look no further than <\/em>the \u2018Life of Julia\u2019 campaign<\/a><\/em>\u00a0 to see that American statism is built around the idea of highly independent, atomized individuals that cannot be bothered with claims from direct community<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

True individualism is far from atomistic, and Rand saw this clearly. She wrote, for instance, that \u201cMan gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life\u2014but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered)<\/em>.\u201d (\u201cA Nation\u2019s Unity,\u201d The Ayn\u00a0Rand Letter<\/cite><\/a>, II, 2, 3)<\/p>\n

But Rand also correctly saw the individual as being primary and precedent to any \u201ccommunity\u201d or \u201csociety\u201d \u2013 although the conditions of a society can certainly constrain or empower an individual. In response to the questions \u201cIs man a social animal?\u201d and \u201cCan he develop only in society?\u201d Rand stated: \u201cMan does live in society, not on a desert island. But that does not mean society \u2018develops\u2019 him. The expression \u2018develops in society\u2019 implies that man is a social animal. I believe no such thing. The issue here is: What is primary in a man\u2019s development, society or his mind? Of course, his mind has primacy. Society cannot make or unmake him. An immoral society can mangle him and make it enormously difficult for him to develop properly psychologically. A rational society can help a man\u2019s development a great deal. In a mixed society, the best minds and those who are strongest morally might withstand the pressure from society, whereas the average person will find it beyond his individual capacity and give up. Society cannot form a person. It cannot force him to accept ideas; but it can discourage him. Nevertheless, that doesn\u2019t make man a social animal<\/em>.\u201d (Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>edited by Robert Mayhew)<\/p>\n

Rand properly recognized that individuals are not better off in insulated vacuums, apart from all other people. She acknowledged that man stands to gain greatly from interactions in society \u2013 but he can also come to great harm thereby. The question for Rand, and for all individualists, is not whether one should stand apart from society, but rather which <\/em>relationships within<\/em> society are most conducive to the flourishing of the individual, and which are to his detriment. Rand\u2019s answer is that the conducive relationships are those of mutual benefit, where values are exchanged among all parties involved, and all parties seek to be better off and grant their consent to the arrangement. While Mr. Joseph thinks that, in this approach, \u201cEthics is collapsed into economics,\u201d the truth is more complex and subtle. Economics describes the outcome of people\u2019s existing <\/em>value judgments (in the form of market prices, interest rates, and other phenomena) and does not directly comment on what individuals ought <\/em>to value. It explains ubiquitous laws of human action that hold no matter what people happen to prefer. \u00a0Ethics, on the other hand, is directly concerned with what an individual should <\/em>want to have and do \u2013 what a good life consists of and how it might be attained. Economics can inform you of the influences that result in the price of food, but it cannot tell you whether you ought to pursue food in the first place.<\/p>\n

Rand\u2019s Objectivist ethics arrives at the ultimate value of the individual\u2019s life by recognizing that the very existence and meaningfulness of the idea of \u201cvalue\u201d depends on a living being that is capable of pursuing values. She writes, \u201cThe existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of \u2018Life\u2019 that makes the concept of \u2018Value\u2019 possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil<\/em>.\u201d (\u201cThe Objectivist Ethics<\/a>\u201d \u2013 quotation from John Galt\u2019s speech in Atlas Shrugged<\/em>)<\/p>\n

Unlike an individual human, a collective of any sort cannot, qua <\/em>collective, breathe, eat, move, or perform any unitary action. To say that a collective can \u201cact\u201d is a misleading figure of speech. Such an \u201caction\u201d can be no more than an aggregation of the extremely disparate and individually motivated actions of a group\u2019s members or participants. The relationships among a group\u2019s members can be quite sophisticated, it is true, but they do not supersede \u2013 in terms of either their existence or their moral worth \u2013 the essential, indivisible, and indissoluble individualities of the participants.<\/p>\n

That brings us to the substance of the disagreement. Mr. Joseph seems to infer that Rand\u2019s individualism is incompatible with relationships within the family \u2013 such as the care for parents and children \u2013 or within a neighborhood \u2013 such as local mutual-aid societies or groups of volunteers. I do not see any reason why such incompatibility need be the case. The exchange of values can readily occur in these circumstances, even in the absence of formal legal contracts or direct exchanges of money. Values are far broader than money and can consist of intangible goods and services \u2013 such as friendship, intellectual improvement, esthetic enjoyment, and even love (see my essay \u201cA Rational View of Love<\/a>\u201d for a detailed discussion). The key principle governing such relationships, to the extent that they are beneficial, is that they should be based on mutual consent as much as possible. Even in cases where full informed consent cannot be given \u2013 as with children, pets, or senile elders \u2013 consent should be sought to the extent that a living creature is capable of exercising it non-destructively, and a presumption must always exist that a dependent creature would act in a life-preserving and life-enhancing manner if it had greater knowledge and ability to do so.<\/p>\n

A respect for the principle of consent in relationships of dependency would imply, for instance, that children should not be forced to accept styles of clothing which they detest or espouse opinions which they do not personally hold through their own conviction; that pets should not be humiliated or restrained from non-destructive inclinations; and that elders should not be infantilized and should be empowered to manage their own affairs to every extent their physical faculties (in combination with technology) permit.<\/p>\n

What Rand detested, and what many individualists likewise abhor, is the idea of top-down or compulsory <\/em>\u201ccommunity\u201d \u2013 of the sort that tries to deliberately (inevitably, through the wishes of some central planner or committee thereof) herd people into artificially constructed relationships for the purpose of building \u201ctogetherness\u201d (or some comparably disingenuous justification). Compulsory national \u201cservice\u201d \u2013 be it military or civilian \u2013 is the prime example of such exploitation of individuals in order to fulfill the power ambitious of the elites creating the \u201ccommunities\u201d of cannon fodder or work drones.<\/p>\n

Additionally, a misguided perception of the purpose of societal interactions can lead to good people being subverted and shackled by their moral lessers. A misperceived sense of the value of \u201ccommunity\u201d for its own sake (apart from any values for the individuals involved) could lead to the persistence of abuse within families; the continual funding of corrupt, dysfunctional, and even perverse churches or other civic organizations due to ingrained guilt or a sense of disembodied obligation among the contributors; the tolerance of incompetent \u201cold boys\u2019 networks\u201d running local governments, because they are part of the \u201csocial fabric\u201d and a deference to tradition prevents their being supplanted by a meritocracy. This kind of perverse communitarianism is a prime example of what Rand called \u201cthe sanction of the victim\u201d \u2013 as it cannot thrive without the endorsement and participation of the good people who create resources upon which the abusers and parasites prey. \u00a0In even worse times and places, the willingness to accept communities over and above individuals has led to thoughtless conformity about the desirability of harming <\/em>individuals perceived as being \u201cother\u201d or \u201coutside\u201d of the community \u2013 persons of different skin colors, national origins, religions, peaceful lifestyles, or peaceful political persuasions. \u00a0The vicious tribalist impulse is still strong in all too many humans, and it should not be stoked.<\/p>\n

A misguided communitarianism has already resulted in the mangling of the first two decades of most Americans\u2019 lives in the form of compulsory \u201cpublic\u201d schooling \u2013 where academic learning takes second stage to \u201csocializing\u201d the students with one another, which typically means that the best of them will be mercilessly bullied by the worst, while the rest lose themselves in pointless fads and clique rivalries. The travesty of compulsory public schooling serves as a prominent demonstration that \u2013 while Mr. Joseph seeks to posit an opposition between the Leviathan and communitarianism \u2013 the two go hand-in-hand more often than not. The Leviathan often employs communitarian rhetoric while representing itself as the entity that gets to define and structure the \u201ccommunity\u201d in question.<\/p>\n

Are we dependent on other people for much of what is good in life? Certainly! But this, far from requiring a communitarian viewpoint, is actually the implication of a consistent individualism. No one person can know everything or learn to do everything. In order for each of us to maximize our well-being, we need to specialize in some activities while relegating the rest to our fellow humans \u2013 with whom we then exchange the fruits of our respective labor. In a market economy based on the principle of individualism, each of us literally depends on the efforts of millions of others to produce the goods and services we daily enjoy.\u00a0 Truly sustainable economies and societies \u2013 ones that operate without degenerating into violence or mass poverty \u2013 require that we treat others with the respect needed to facilitate these ongoing transactions. With a small circle of these individuals, we are able to form even closer ties, where formal transactions are not required to maintain ongoing value-trades. In a household, for instance, it is simply more efficient to keep a rough mental picture of other participants\u2019 contributions, rather than itemizing everything in minute detail. Furthermore, the ability to closely trust others in one\u2019s family (provided that it is a good one, without abuse, deception, or exploitation) eliminates the need for most of the typical safeguards of commerce among strangers. Similarly, a custom of volunteer work in one\u2019s neighborhood might result in the capture of certain \u201cpositive externalities\u201d \u2013 such as the benefits of cleaner streets, happier (and therefore more productive and peaceful) residents, and lower rates of vandalism and other crimes.<\/p>\n

Perhaps Ayn Rand\u2019s individualism, properly understood, would allow for precisely the ideal sense of the \u201cnatural community\u201d that Mr. Joseph extols \u2013 one in which individuals engage in a variety of interactions (many of them non-monetary) to mutual benefit and thereby develop strong ties. Unfortunately, in practice, the explicit idealization of the \u201ccommunity\u201d has not been an effective way of achieving such an outcome. It has, indeed, resulted in the very opposite: an insidious and manipulative elite, or a conformist and prejudiced majority (often incited by that same elite), limiting the freedoms and sometimes ruining the lives of those who wish to use their rational faculties to find a better way.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

G. Stolyarov II September 8, 2012 Recommend this page. ****************************** James Joseph argues in \u201cAyn Rand\u2019s Paradox\u201d that Rand\u2019s \u201cdefense of individual freedom provides a self-defeating apologia for the American welfare state.\u201d Mr. Joseph\u2019s essay takes the communitarian view that, without the bulwark of \u201cnatural community\u201d (including \u201cshared duties\u201d or \u201cnatural duties and obligations\u201d or \u201cclaims from direct community\u201d), the individual becomes increasingly reliant on government for every benefit in life. Yet Mr. Joseph\u2019s analysis portrays Ayn Rand as espousing…<\/p>\n

Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,41,5],"tags":[42,1270,1269,715,394,1271,18,58,147,84,40,57,1268,1272,59,103,146,44,1273,1274,60,493],"class_list":["post-529","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economics","category-philosophy","category-politics","tag-ayn-rand","tag-communitarianism","tag-community","tag-compulsion","tag-consent","tag-division-of-labor","tag-economy","tag-egoism","tag-ethics","tag-freedom","tag-g-stolyarov-ii","tag-individualism","tag-james-joseph","tag-leviathan","tag-liberty","tag-life","tag-morality","tag-objectivism","tag-public-schooling","tag-rational-egoism","tag-reason","tag-values"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/529","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=529"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/529\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":531,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/529\/revisions\/531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=529"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=529"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rationalargumentator.com\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=529"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}