Jennifer Burns, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. Oxford University Press, 2009.
In
Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right,
writer Jennifer Burns manages to cloak a biographical “analysis” of one
of the most influential pro-liberty figures in a thin veil of impartial
academic respectability while simultaneously trying to discredit and
undercut the woman and the ideas that form the core of her presentation.
Burns seems to do well at accurately presenting various facts about
Rand’s life, her supporters, and her detractors. Though I’m sure she
did extensive research and saw sources few others have utilized,
unfortunately, not much of new significance is revealed here. The
average person will care little what was in some fan letter or how Rand
came to change her given name. For those who have read extensively in
this area, such tidbits will also fail to provide much sustenance. Much
is made of Rand’s use of amphetamines, her growing disillusionment with
the world as she aged, and her dysfunctional relationships. All of this
is old news.
One reviewer in another venue gushed that this book drew him in, that
he finished it in a day. Well, I managed to finish it in a couple of
weeks. It’s serviceable. I do have to admire the amount of time and
effort Burns put into this tome. Too bad the end result was so lacking
in insight and wrong in interpretation.
Despite her extensive readings and interviews, Burns seems to little
understand either Objectivism or even libertarianism. Yes, she can
summarize or regurgitate the ideas and the words, but her grasp of
essentials seems woefully inadequate. A number of instances come to
mind. For example, Burns latches on to Rand’s atheism and concludes but
for that disagreement, Objectivism would fit snugly within the
political right. But opposing the Right/Objectivism with the Left
simply perpetuates the myth that the Right and the Left are on opposite
ends of the political spectrum, with Rand’s views somewhere “over
there” next to the Republicans. But for Rand and Objectivists, atheism
is a secondary issue, a result of the basic principles, not a central
tenet. It is the Left and the Right that exist on the end of the
political spectrum that declares the State owns our lives, differing
(barely these days...) on what shall be controlled and how.
Libertarians and Objectivists are diametrically opposed to any notion
that politicians and government agencies have any right to dictate how
adults shall peacefully live their lives. We each own our own lives and
property. We are not slaves. By persisting in this theme throughout her
book, Burns undercuts her credibility whenever she crosses the line
from merely presenting facts to interpreting those facts.
Other examples: repeating the old myth that Objectivism and
individualism are “atomistic,” that these views are antagonistic to
cooperation and mutual benefit; that Objectivism claims that emotions
are to be ignored and is wrong to believe that emotions are founded in
thought; that bringing up Kant’s views is “kooky”; that Objectivism
opposes helping others; that
Atlas Shrugged denigrates the
“little guy”; well, it’s not worth my time to fully catalog all of
Burns’s errors regarding Objectivism, freedom, libertarianism, or Rand.
(For more such examples, see
this review.)
Given the accuracy here of the facts about Rand’s life, what grates
most is the subtle but distinct disdain Burns evidences — not just for
Objectivist principles — but for principled action and freedom, in
general. The disparaging adjectives she slides into her narrative; her
sympathy for professors who, oh so sadly, must deal with students using
Rand as source material in their papers; the undercurrent that conveys
the notion that freedom and Objectivist ideals are naive, unrealistic,
and often just plain wrong. Yes, Burns acknowledges Rand’s influence on
the Right and in society, in general. I suspect, however, that she does
not view that situation as necessarily a positive one. Why she wanted
to write about a person and a philosophy she has such little sympathy
with is beyond me.
I have no desire to defend the mistakes that Rand or Branden or any of
those people made. But while Burns nudges the reader to blame the very
philosophy of Objectivism and its ideas for those errors, I realize
that the human failings of Rand
et al. occurred precisely
because
they failed to adhere to the principles they professed to believe.
Perhaps because I read Rand in my thirties I escaped some of the
misinterpretations and misapplications that younger people are prone
to. But the ignorance or failures of any individual or set of
individuals says nothing about the validity and applicability of any
philosophy...and most assuredly not that of Objectivism.
For a reader who knows little of Rand or the issues surrounding the
rise of libertarianism over the past century, this book might prove a
useful summary and introduction — as long as the above caveats are kept
in mind. For anyone who truly understands freedom, who truly
understands Objectivism, who truly understands him- or herself, the
niggling annoyances of Burns’s judgments, biases, and errors will serve
to diminish the value that all her hard work was intended to produce.
